[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 60 (Friday, March 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 14944]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-7882]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[Docket No. 96-46]
Charles R. Griffin, Jr., D.D.S. Revocation of Registration
On August 15, 1996, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an
Order to Show Cause to Charles R. Griffin, Jr., D.D.S. (Respondent), of
Tucson, Arizona, notifying him of an opportunity to show cause as to
why DEA should not revoke his DEA Certificate of Registration
BG4084593, and deny any pending applications for registration as a
practitioner pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a)(3), for reason
that he is not currently authorized to practice dentistry in the State
of Arizona.
Respondent timely requested a hearing, and the matter was docketed
before Administrative Law Judge Mary Ellen Bittner. On October 21,
1996, Judge Bittner issued an Order for Prehearing Statements. On
October 30, 1996, the Government filed a Motion for Summary
Disposition, alleging that effective May 12, 1995, the Arizona State
Board of Dental Examiners (Board) revoked Respondent's license to
practice dentistry, and as a result, Respondent is not currently
authorized to handle controlled substances in the State of Arizona.
Respondent did not file a response to the Government's motion. However,
in his letter requesting a hearing, Respondent did not dispute that he
was not authorized to handle controlled substances, but rather asked
for a postponement of the revocation proceeding since he is seeking
reinstatement of his license either by judicial action or by approval
of his application for reinstatement with the Board.
On November 27, 1996, Judge Bittner issued her Opinion and
Recommended Decision, finding that Respondent lacked authorization to
handle controlled substances in the State of Arizona; granting the
Government's Motion for Summary Disposition; and recommending that
Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration be revoked. Neither party
filed exceptions to her opinion, and on January 8, 1997, Judge Bittner
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, in full, the Opinion and
Recommended Decision of the Administrative Law Judge.
The Acting Deputy Administrator finds that by Order dated May 12,
1995, the Board revoked Respondent's license to practice dentistry in
the State of Arizona. Like Judge Bittner, the Acting Deputy
Administrator finds it reasonable to infer that because Respondent is
not licensed to practice dentistry in Arizona, he is also not
authorized to handle controlled substances in that State.
DEA does not have the statutory authority under the Controlled
Substances Act to issue or maintain a registration if the applicant or
registrant is without state authority to handle controlled substances
in the State in which he conducts business. 21 U.S.C. 802(21), 823(f),
and 824(a)(3). This prerequisite has been consistently upheld. See
Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 Fed. Reg. 51,104 (1993); James H. Nickens,
M.D., 57 Fed. Reg. 59,847 (1992); Roy E. Hardman, M.D., 57 Fed. Reg.
49,195 (1992). Since the record is clear that Respondent is not
authorized to handle controlled substances in the State of Arizona, as
Judge Bittner notes, ``[i]t is equally clear that * * * Respondent is
not currently entitled to a DEA registration.''
Judge Bittner also properly granted the Government's Motion for
Summary Disposition. Here, the parties did not dispute the fact that
Respondent was unauthorized to handle controlled substances in Arizona.
Therefore, it is well-settled that when no question of material fact is
involved, a plenary, adversary administrative proceeding involving
evidence and cross-examination of witnesses is not obligatory. See
Phillip E. Kirk, M.D., 48 Fed. Reg. 32,887 (1983), aff'd sub nom Kirk
v. Mullen, 749 F.2d 297 (6th Cir. 1984); NLRB v. International
Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, AFL-CIO,
549 F.2d 634 (9th Cir. 1977); United States v. Consolidated Mines &
Smelting Co., 44 F.2d 432 (9th Cir. 1971).
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 DEA Certificate of Registration BG4084593, previously issued to
Charles R. Griffin, Jr., D.D.S., be, and it hereby is, revoked. The
Acting Deputy Administrator further orders that any pending
applications for renewal of such registration be, and they hereby are
denied. This order is effective April 28, 1997.
Dated: March 14, 1997.
James S. Milford,
Acting Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-7882 Filed 3-27-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
