96-5141. AML Corporation, d/b/a G & O Pharmacy, and G & O Pharmacy Revocation of Registration  

  • [Federal Register Volume 61, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 6, 1996)]
    [Notices]
    [Pages 8973-8977]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 96-5141]
    
    
    
    =======================================================================
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
    
    Drug Enforcement Administration
    [Docket No. 94-34 and 92-78]
    
    
    AML Corporation, d/b/a G & O Pharmacy, and G & O Pharmacy 
    Revocation of Registration
    
        On July 23, 1992, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 
    Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an 
    Order to Show Cause to G & O Pharmacy (Respondent), DEA Registration, 
    AG2999691, of Paducah, Kentucky, notifying it of an opportunity to show 
    cause as to why DEA should not revoke its DEA Certificate of 
    Registration, and deny any pending applications, under 21 U.S.C. 823(f) 
    and 824(a)(4), as being inconsistent with the public interest. 
    Specifically, the Order to Show Cause alleged in substance, that: (1) 
    in July 1990, an individual had overdosed on Demerol received from the 
    owner-manager pharmacist of the Respondent, Randall Lockhart, without 
    benefit of prescription; (2) accountability audits conducted of the 
    Respondent by DEA investigators in 1990 revealed shortages of Schedules 
    II and III controlled substances; (3) the Respondent had filled at 
    least 217 call-in prescriptions not authorized by the physicians whose 
    names appeared on the Respondent's records; and (4) at least one 
    individual, on multiple occasions, had received controlled substances 
    from Mr. Lockhart without seeing the physician listed on the call-in 
    prescriptions.
        Respondent, through counsel, filed a timely request for a hearing, 
    and the case was docketed as G & O Pharmacy, Docket No. 92-78. 
    Following prehearing procedures, a hearing was held in Louisville, 
    Kentucky, on March 10 and 11, 1993. At the hearing, both parties called 
    witnesses to testify and introduced documentary evidence. After the 
    hearing, counsel for both parties submitted proposed findings of fact, 
    conclusions of law and argument.
        Subsequently, on December 16, 1993, counsel for the Government 
    filed a motion to reopen the proceedings. The motion alleged that Mr. 
    Lockhart had transferred the ownership of Respondent G & O Pharmacy to 
    AML Corporation (AML). Further, the motion alleged that AML had applied 
    for and received a DEA registration, BA3838553, to operate the 
    Respondent, and that DEA had not been notified, pursuant to 21 CFR 
    1301.62 and 1307.14(b), that G & O Pharmacy had ceased doing business 
    under the previous ownership or that Mr. Lockhart had transferred 
    ownership to another entity. The Respondent did not answer the motion, 
    and on January 12, 1994, Administrative Law Judge Mary Ellen Bittner 
    issued an order reopening the proceedings in Docket No. 92-78.
        On March 11, 1994, an Order to Show Cause was issued to AML d/b/a/ 
    G & O Pharmacy, alleging that the Respondent's continued registration 
    was inconsistent with the public interest on the same basis as stated 
    in the July 1992 order in Docket No. 92-78, with the addition of the 
    allegation that Mr. Lockhart had improperly transferred ownership of 
    Respondent without notifying the DEA as required. The Respondent 
    requested a hearing, and on June 1, 1994, Judge Bittner issued an order 
    consolidating the two cases. On November 17, 1994, Judge Bittner 
    conducted a hearing in the consolidated proceedings in Louisville, 
    Kentucky. At this hearing, AML was represented by counsel, and both 
    parties called witnesses to testify and introduced documentary 
    evidence. Following the hearing, both the Government and the 
    Respondent, AML, filed further proposed findings of fact, conclusions 
    of law and argument.
        On May 31, 1995, Judge Bittner issued her Opinion and Recommended 
    Ruling, recommending that the Respondent's DEA registration be revoked 
    and that any pending applications be denied. AML and G & O Pharmacy 
    filed exceptions to her opinion, and on July 17, 1995, the Government 
    filed a response to these exceptions. On July 19, 1995, Judge Bittner 
    transmitted the record of these proceedings and the 
    
    [[Page 8974]]
    parties' filings to the Deputy Administrator.
        The Deputy Administrator has considered the record and the filings 
    by the parties in their 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 the Opinion and Recommended Ruling, Findings of Fact, 
    Conclusions of Law and Decision of the Administrative Law Judge, with 
    noted exceptions, and 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 the Respondent is a pharmacy in 
    Paducah, Kentucky. Randall Lockhart is a registered pharmacist in the 
    Commonwealth of Kentucky, and he has practiced pharmacy since 1959. His 
    wife, Cynthia Lockhart, is a registered nurse who worked at the 
    Respondent's location. In March or April of 1989, Mr. Lockhart bought a 
    50% ownership in Oehlschlaeger Corporation (Oehlschlaeger), owner of 
    the Respondent pharmacy, and in February of 1990, he bought the 
    remaining 50% ownership interest. Mr. Lockhart continued to work as the 
    pharmacist at G & O Pharmacy.
        At the hearing before Judge Bittner, Mr. Lockhart testified that in 
    July 1990, he had received a telephone call from a local dentist 
    (Dentist), requesting injectable Demerol for a planned surgical 
    procedure he was to perform with the assistance of another dentist, Dr. 
    Heine. Mr. Lockhart further testified that he had told the calling 
    Dentist that he had twenty-four vials of Demerol on hand, but that he 
    would either have to write a prescription if the Demerol was for the 
    use of a single patient, or provide a DEA order form, if he wanted the 
    substance for general office use. Demerol is the brand name for 
    meperidine hydrochloride, a Schedule II controlled substance.
        Although in dispute, Mr. Lockhart testified that the Dentist then 
    appeared at the pharmacy, gave Mrs. Lockhart what appeared to be a 
    prescription for Demerol, and obtained all twenty-four vials from the 
    pharmacy, telling Mrs. Lockhart that he would return the next day with 
    the requisite DEA order form. The next day, Mr. Lockhart called Dr. 
    Heine and requested that either he or the Dentist provide the required 
    paperwork for the transfer of the Demerol, and that Dr. Heine told him 
    that the Dentist was a drug addict, and that ``he wouldn't do a 
    surgical procedure with him in a 100 years.'' Mr. Lockhart testified 
    that that was the first time he had ever heard the Dentist referred to 
    as a drug addict. Mr. Lockhart then testified that, upon further 
    investigation, he found out that the Dentist was in a hospital 
    emergency room following an overdose.
        Mr. Lockhart testified that he subsequently contacted the Inspector 
    of the Kentucky Board of Pharmacy (Kentucky Board) for advice, and that 
    the Inspector advised him to contact the DEA office in Louisville. Mr. 
    Lockhart wrote to the DEA, and following the DEA's advice, also wrote 
    to the Board of Dentistry concerning these events.
        Paducah Police Department Officers (Officers) interviewed the 
    Dentist, who stated that he had not written the prescription Mr. 
    Lockhart had for the Demerol. The Dentist also stated that on fifteen 
    to twenty previous occasions he had received controlled substances from 
    Mr. Lockhart merely by asking, and that he had obtained ``basically 
    whatever I wanted [a]s long as it wasn't Schedule II.'' He also stated 
    that he had taken fictitious prescriptions for Percocet to Mr. 
    Lockhart, which he had filled. Percocet contains oxycodone, a Schedule 
    II controlled substance.
        The Dentist also told the Officers that he had been a substance 
    abuser since 1985, and that he was sure Mr. Lockhart knew what he 
    intended to do with the drugs he obtained from the Respondent, although 
    he later stated that he had assumed Mr. Lockhart knew of his substance 
    abuse problem. However, at the hearing before Judge Bittner, Mr. 
    Lockhart denied knowing that the Dentist was a substance abuser at the 
    time of this incident.
        A DEA diversion investigator (Investigator) testified that the 
    Paducah Police Department had advised him in September of 1990, of the 
    incident with the Dentist, and that on October 10, 1990, a DEA special 
    agent served a federal search warrant on the Respondent. Pursuant to 
    this warrant, DEA personnel seized controlled substance prescriptions 
    and other records.
        The Investigator testified that he had used the seized records to 
    conduct an accountability audit of the Respondent's Schedule II 
    controlled substances for the period May 28, 1989, to October 10, 1990, 
    and for various Schedule III through V controlled substances for the 
    period May 1, 1989, through October 10, 1990. In her opinion, Judge 
    Bittner summarized the significant audit results, and the summaries 
    demonstrate that Mr.Lockhart had significant shortages of Dilaudid 4 
    mg., Meperidine, Mepergan Fortis, Valium 10 mg., APAP #3, Tylenol #3, 
    Lortab 5 mg. and 7.5 mg., and Didrex 50 mg., as well as a significant 
    overage of Demerol 100 mg.
        Mr. Lockhart testified before Judge Bittner that he did not think 
    that the DEA audit accurately reflected shortages and overages, but 
    that he was unable to verify the numbers. He also testified that he had 
    not conducted an inventory when he had purchased an interest in the 
    Respondent pharmacy, and that there could have been shortages at that 
    time. The Inspector testified that Mr. Lockhart's records had been 
    seized in a search conducted by the Paducah police officers prior to 
    the DEA search, and that the Officers had not returned them. It is 
    undisputed that the Paducah police executed a search warrant for the 
    Respondent's controlled substance records in August 1990. However, Mr. 
    Lockhart did not indicate that he ever advised the DEA Investigator, at 
    either the time of the DEA search or audit, that G&O's records may have 
    been incomplete.
        The Investigator testified that during the October 1990 search, he 
    had noticed that the Respondent had filled disproportionately more 
    call-in prescriptions than other pharmacies. Therefore, he obtained 
    copies of these prescriptions from the Respondent pharmacy. The 
    Investigator then interviewed the physicians (or their office 
    personnel) listed on the prescriptions to verify the authorization for 
    each prescription under review. In ten cases,the physician or office 
    personnel working for the physician, indicated that the person named on 
    the prescription was not his or her patient, and that patient records 
    were not maintained for that named individual. In total, the 
    Investigator testified that he was unable to verify approximately 198 
    prescriptions purportedly authorized by twenty different doctors. Many 
    of the prescriptions were dated after the time Mr. Lockhart became the 
    100 percent owner of the pharmacy. All of these prescriptions were 
    dispensed by either Mr. Lockhart or Mr. Oehlschlaeger, another 
    pharmacist and co-owner working at the Respondent pharmacy prior to Mr. 
    Lockhart's becoming the sole owner. Judge Bittner found the 
    Investigator's testimony credible.
        However, Mr. Lockhart testified that all of the allegedly 
    unauthorized prescriptions were authorized, and that ``almost all [of 
    these unauthorized prescriptions were] what [amounted] to refill 
    prescriptions.'' He also testified that he had routinely received oral 
    prescriptions from the physicians who had denied authorizing the 
    prescriptions under review.
    
    [[Page 8975]]
    
        While the G&O Pharmacy case was pending, Mrs. Lockhart called the 
    Diversion Group Supervisor (Supervisor) at DEA's Louisville office to 
    express her concern about the Respondent's Certificate of Registration. 
    The Certificate was due to expire, and because of the pending 
    proceedings, a renewal certificate had not been issued. Mrs. Lockhart 
    feared suppliers would not fill orders because of the expired 
    certificate. The Supervisor advised Mrs. Lockhart that the registration 
    remained active on a day-to-day basis until a final order was issued by 
    the DEA. The Supervisor also offered to call the Respondent's suppliers 
    to explain the situation. Subsequently, the Investigator, a subordinate 
    of the Supervisor's, did call a supplier and an insurance company and 
    explained that the Respondent remained authorized to handle controlled 
    substances on a day-to-day basis.
        On May 31, 1993, Mr. Lockhart executed a renewal application for 
    the respondent's Kentucky pharmacy license, listing Respondent's owner 
    as Oehlschlaeger with himself as the president, and Mrs. Lockhart as 
    the vice president, secretary, and treasurer. On August 11, 1993, Mr. 
    Lockhart executed a renewal application for the Respondent's DEA 
    registration. However, on October 4, 1993, Mrs. Lockhart executed 
    articles of incorporation for AML, listing its business address as the 
    same as the Respondent's, with herself as the incorporator. By letter 
    dated October 13, 1993, Mr. Lockhart advised the Pharmacy Board of the 
    transfer of ownership to AML with Mrs. Lockhart as the sole owner of 
    AML's stock.
        Before Judge Bittner, Mrs. Lockhart testified that she and her 
    husband had talked about this transfer of ownership as early as in 
    1990, and that the primary reason for the transfer of ownership was Mr. 
    Lockhart's health. He had had coronary bypass surgery approximately 9 
    years prior, and they had both agreed that he should taper his 
    involvement in the business. However, Mr. Lockhart remained the primary 
    pharmacist. Mrs. Lockhart testified that she intended to hire another 
    pharmacist, but due to the uncertainty generated by these proceedings, 
    she had waited to add additional staff until she could provide 
    assurances of long-term employment. Mrs. Lockhart further testified 
    that she had formed a new corporation, rather than merely having her 
    husband transfer his stock from the prior corporation to her, because 
    she wanted a corporate name of her own. The record contains no 
    indication of how much money, if any, AML paid for the business.
        On October 15, 1993, Mrs. Lockhart applied for a Kentucky pharmacy 
    license for the Respondent, noting the change of ownership, listing a 
    proposed acquisition date of October 26, 1993, and showing the 
    corporate owner as ``AML Corp. DBA G&O Pharmacy.'' She also listed 
    herself a President, Vice President, And Secretary/Treasurer, and her 
    husband as Pharmacist in Charge.
        That same day, Mrs. Lockhart executed an application for a DEA 
    registration, listing herself as president of ``AML Corporation, doing 
    business as G&O Pharmacy,'' located at the same address as the 
    Respondent. AML was issued a Certificate of Registration, number 
    BA3838553, effective November 15, 1993, with an expiration date of June 
    30, 1996.
        The Investigator testified before Judge Bittner that he had first 
    learned about the AML transaction on or about December 1, 1993, when 
    the Louisville DEA office received copies of DEA order forms dated 
    November 22, 1993, transferring Schedule II controlled substances from 
    ``G&O Pharmarcy'' to AML. Mrs. Lockhart testified that she had mailed 
    the DEA order forms. She also testified that her husband had mailed to 
    the DEA the prior corporation's unused DEA order forms and the 
    Respondent's expired DEA Certificate of Registration. Although Mrs. 
    Lockhart testified that she had retrained possession of the return mail 
    receipts for both sets of documents, such receipts were not offered 
    into evidence and are not a part of the record. Further, the 
    Investigator testified that he have not personally received any unused 
    order forms from the Respondent, and that there was no record in his 
    office that the forms had been received. Further, the record contains 
    no other evidence to evidence to show that the unused order forms had 
    been received by the DEA or that the DEA has been advised of the 
    transfer of ownership of the Respondent as required by DEA regulations.
        The Pharmacy Board Inspector testified that he had inspected the 
    Respondent approximately two to four times per year, and that after Mr. 
    Lockhart had become associated with the pharmacy, it had a ``clearner 
    and neater appearance,'' and its recordkeeping had improved. The 
    Inspector also testified that he had inspected the Respondent after AML 
    had become its owner, and that as far as he knew it was not cited for 
    any violations of Kentucky regulation and remained in good standing 
    with the Pharmacy Board. Further, Mrs. Lockart testified before Judge 
    Bittner, stating that the Respondent was an independent pharmacy, that 
    it was the only pharmacy in the area that compound medications, and 
    that physicians from a nearby hospital routinely called her husband to 
    obtain advice on how to prepare pediatric medications.
        Pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.62 and 1301.63, the cessation of business 
    terminates a DEA registration, and a registrant is required to notify 
    the agency promptly and in writing if it ceases doing business. The 
    regulations also require a registrant intending to transfer its 
    business interests to another business entity to provide specified 
    information to the appropriate DEA Special Agency in Charge at least 
    fourteen days in advance of the proposed transfer. Also, pursuant to 21 
    CFR 1307.14(b), an inventory of all controlled substances must be taken 
    on the date of the transfer, but the regulation does not require filing 
    of the inventory with the DEA.
        Further, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a)(4), the Deputy 
    Administrator may revoke a DEA Certificate of Registration if he 
    determines that the continued registration would be inconsistent with 
    the public interest. Section 823(f) requires that the following factors 
    be 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 appplicant'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 or 
    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. Schwarz, Jr., M.D., Docket No 88-42, 54 FR 16422 
    (1989)
        In this case, the Deputy Administrator finds factors one, two, 
    four, and five relevant in determining whether the Respondent's 
    continued registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. 
    As to factor one, ``recommendation of the appropriate State licensing 
    board,'' per the Inspector's testimony, the Respondent AML's state 
    licenses are in order, and no adverse actions are pending.
    
    [[Page 8976]]
    
        As to factor two, the Respondent's ``experience in dispensing * * * 
    controlled substances,'' it has previously been found that the improper 
    filling of prescriptions by a pharmacist working in a pharmacy could 
    serve as a basis for revoking the DEA Certificate of Registration for 
    that pharmacy. See, e.g., Medic-Aid Pharmacy, Docket No, 89-12, 55 FR 
    30043 (1990). Also, the regulations implementing the Controlled 
    Substances Act specify that a prescription for a controlled substance 
    ``shall be dated as of, and signed on, the day when issued and shall 
    bear the full name and address of the patient, the drug name, strength, 
    dosage form, quantity prescribed, directions for use, and the name, 
    address and registration number of the practitioner.'' 21 CFR 
    1306.05(a). Also, a pharmacist may dispense directly a Schedule II 
    controlled substance ``only pursuant to a written prescription signed 
    by the prescribing individual practitioner. * * *'' 21 CFR 1306.11(a). 
    The regulations also prohibit practitioners from issuing prescriptions 
    in order ``to obtain controlled substances for supplying the individual 
    practitioner for the purpose of general dispensing to patients.'' 21 
    CFR 1306.04(b).
        It is undisputed that the document left by the Dentist when he took 
    the Demerol in July of 1990, even if he had, in fact, signed it and 
    left it with Mrs. Lockhart, would not have been an adequate document to 
    record the transfer of 24 dosage units of Demerol for in-office use. 
    However, the Deputy Administrator agrees with Judge Bittner's 
    conclusions regarding this incident, when she wrote:
    
        Assuming arguendo, that Mr. Lockhart did not examine the 
    ``prescription,'' and that neither of the Lockharts anticipated that 
    [the Dentist] would take the Demerol without leaving proper 
    documentation, this incident standing alone might not warrant 
    revoking [the] Respondent's DEA registration.
    
        However, this incident does not stand alone, for the record 
    contains other evidence of Mr. Lockhart's dispensing practices. 
    Although Mr. Lockhart testified about flaws in the DEA audit, 
    especially following the Paducah Police search, Judge Bittner noted 
    that ``Mr. Lockhart apparently did not think it necessary to advise the 
    DEA auditors that his records might be incomplete, which prompts the 
    inference, which I make, that he was not seriously concerned about the 
    matter.'' Further, Judge Bittner found that ``[the] Respondent adduced 
    no persuasive evidence to explain the shortages.'' Rather, she noted, 
    and the Deputy Administrator concurs, that the evidence demonstrated 
    that the shortages were substantial, for ``some shortages of Schedule 
    III through V controlled substances were in the thousands of dosage 
    units, amounting to more than fifty percent of the total for which 
    [the] Respondent was accountable.'' The Deputy Administrator also 
    concurs with Judge Bittner's conclusion, that ``these shortages 
    constitute a basis for revoking [the] Respondent's DEA registration.'' 
    See Val Gene Tatum, d/b/a/ Val's Pharmacy, 56 FR 16117 (1991), aff'd 
    sub nom Val G. Tatum v. DEA, 9th Cir. No. 91-70328 (January 16, 1992; 
    unpublished).
        As for the evidence of unauthorized dispensing, the Investigator 
    testified that approximately 198 prescriptions were unauthorized, and 
    in 10 cases, he had interviewed doctors or their office personnel, who 
    had stated that the individuals named on the prescriptions were not 
    their patients. Although the Investigator's testimony concerning his 
    conversations with these medical personnel was hearsay, the Deputy 
    Administrator concurs with Judge Bittner's findings and conclusions as 
    to the reliability of this evidence: ``I find that the hearsay evidence 
    introduced through [the] Investigator [  ] is more reliable than Mr. 
    Lockhart's testimony, and therefore conclude that [the] Respondent 
    filled controlled substance prescriptions without authorization from 
    physicians. This conduct is further grounds for revoking [the] 
    Respondent's DEA registration.'' Also significant, and as noted by 
    Judge Bittner, Mr. Lockhart ``proffered no explanation as to why 
    various doctors denied authorizing the prescriptions at issue.''
        As to factor four, the Respondent's ``[c]ompliance with applicable 
    State, Federal, or local laws relating to controlled substances,'' the 
    Deputy Administrator finds significant the Government's evidence of 
    noncompliance with DEA regulations by Mr. Lockhart when he transferred 
    ownership of G & O Pharmacy to AML. Specifically, 21 CFR 1305.14 
    states, in relevant part: ``If the registration of any purchaser 
    terminates (because the purchaser * * * ceases legal existence * * *) * 
    * * he shall return all unused order forms for [Schedules I and II] 
    substance[s] to the nearest office of the Administration.'' Although 
    Mrs. Lockhart testified that she believed Mr. Lockhart had sent unused 
    DEA order forms to the DEA via registered mail, AML's counsel did not 
    introduce the registered mail receipt, and the DEA Investigator 
    testified that such forms were not received by the DEA.
        Furthermore, in this case, 21 CFR 1307.14(b) required Mr. Lockhart 
    to provide the Special Agent in Charge in his area specific information 
    at least 14 days in advance of the date of the proposed transfer of his 
    ownership in the pharmacy. Unrefuted evidence exists to establish that 
    Mr. Lockhart had failed to inform the DEA of his transfer of ownership 
    in compliance with this regulation.
        The Deputy Administrator also takes into account Judge Bittner's 
    finding: ``Neither Mr. nor Mrs. Lockhart impressed me as credible 
    witnesses. Their testimony appeared tailored to suit [the] Respondent's 
    defenses rather than to accurately reflect relevant events. . . . In 
    contrast, Investigator [ ] appeared to be forthright and to exhibit 
    good recall, and I therefore credit [his] testimony.'' Thus, the Deputy 
    Administrator concludes that preponderating evidence exists to 
    establish that Mr. Lockhart failed to comply with the cited regulations 
    in effectuating the transfer of ownership of G & O Pharmacy.
        As to factor five, ``[s]uch other conduct which may threaten the 
    public health or safety,'' the Deputy Administrator finds significant 
    the continued pattern of Mr. Lockhart's noncompliance with the 
    Controlled Substances Act and the implementing regulations. 
    Specifically, in neither hearing before Judge Bittner did Mr. Lockhart 
    present any evidence of his acknowledging past misconduct by taking 
    responsibility for (1) any of the documented shortages of controlled 
    substances; (2) his customer's having obtained controlled substances 
    without authorization from physicians; or (3) his failure to transfer 
    his ownership in the pharmacy in a manner which would have been in 
    compliance with DEA regulations. Mr. Lockhart's conduct fails to 
    reflect the acceptance of responsibility needed to continue as a 
    registered handler of controlled substances.
        As for the transfer of ownership of the Respondent, Judge Bittner 
    wrote that ``the preponderance of the record establishes, and I find, 
    that the transfer * * * was not a bona fide transaction, but rather a 
    stratagem to obtain a new DEA registration.'' However, Mrs. Lockhart 
    testified about the efforts she made to insure AML was clearly a 
    distinct entity from Mr. Lockhart's corporation. Specifically, she 
    testified that on behalf of AML, she had opened a bank account, 
    obtained a federal employer tax identification number, procured 
    insurance for AML, and paid Mr. Lockhart a salary as an employee.
    
    [[Page 8977]]
    
        After reviewing this evidence, the Deputy Administrator has 
    determined that he need not make a finding as to the viability of this 
    ownership transaction. Even assuming, arguendo, that the transfer was a 
    bona fide transaction, revocation of AML's registration is still 
    appropriate. For, previously it has been found that revocation of the 
    DEA registration remained appropriate despite a transfer of ownership, 
    where there has been no change in the control exerted by the prior 
    pharmacist who had engaged in misconduct related to the dispensing of 
    controlled substances. Specifically, ``[t]he close connection between 
    the former and current owners leads the Administrator to believe that 
    the transfer has not, and will not, alter the way business is conducted 
    at the pharmacy.'' Absecon Pharmacy, Docket No. 88-76, 55 FR 9029 
    (1990). Here, the new owner, Mrs. Lockhart, is not a registered 
    pharmacist, is the wife of the former owner, and continues to employ 
    Mr. Lockhart as the ``Pharmacist in Charge.'' Mr. Lockhart continues to 
    hold unrestricted authorization to order and dispense controlled 
    substances. Further, AML did not provide any evidence to demonstrate 
    that any precautions had been taken to provide assurances that 
    controlled substances would not be improperly dispensed in the future 
    by Mr. Lockhart. The Deputy Administrator finds that the risk of 
    diversion by Mr. Lockhart remains, even though G & O Pharmacy is 
    currently under the ownership of AML. Since Mr. Lockhart remains the 
    primary pharmacist of the Respondent, his past misconduct continues to 
    justify the revocation of the Respondent's DEA Certificate of 
    Registration.
        The Respondent AML raised several exceptions to Judge Bittner's 
    opinion. First, AML asserted that it was denied procedural due process 
    through the consolidation of the two cases, for AML argued that:
    
        Due process requires that any denial, revocation, or suspension 
    of AML's registration be based upon the acts and omissions . . . of 
    AML, not a predecessor in interest to its business. Further, 
    fundamental due process requires that AML have notice and an 
    opportunity to confront witnesses and contest the grounds upon which 
    the government seeks to revoke its DEA certificate of registration.
    
        4However, the Deputy Administrator notes that the Order to Show 
    Cause issued to AML Corporation on March 11, 1994, specifically set out 
    the allegations of Mr. Lockhart's acts of misconduct, mirroring the 
    notice given to G & O Pharmacy in July 0f 1992. By letter dated April 
    5, 1994, AML's counsel entered his appearance, requested a hearing, and 
    responded to the allegations in the show cause order paragraph by 
    paragraph. Thus, AML had notice of the acts which might constitute the 
    basis for revoking AML's registration.
        Further, by order dated June 1, 1994, Judge Bittner ordered G & O's 
    counsel to provide AML's counsel copies of documents from the March 
    1993 hearing, and she ordered the Government to provide AML's counsel 
    exhibits and a copy of the transcript from that hearing. Judge Bittner, 
    concurrent with the June 1994 order, provided AML's counsel with copies 
    of the Administrative Law Judge's exhibits and the record to date in 
    the G & O case. Also, AML received a hearing, witnesses appeared, and 
    documentary evidence was received. AML thus received notice and had an 
    opportunity to confront witnesses and ``contest the grounds upon which 
    the government seeks to revoke its DEA Certificate of registration''.
        The only reference in the record which even arguably could be 
    viewed as restricting AML's access to witnesses, was the following from 
    the hearing transcript of AML's proceedings:
    
        [Judge Bittner]: My understanding is that we agreed this 
    morning, prior to the commencement of the hearing, that we weren't 
    going back into the prior case.
    
        Mr. SHANNON: [AML's counsel] Yes, Judge. And I was just getting 
    ready to say I can probably obviate any of the objections. All I 
    want the record to reflect is that [the Investigator] conducted the 
    investigation of Oehlschlaeger, Inc., [.] AML Corporation was not 
    audited. They were not in existence.
    
        The Deputy Administrator certainly is not conceding that AML was 
    denied an opportunity to confront and cross-examine witnesses from the 
    preceding hearing. However, even assuming arguendo, that AML's access 
    to witnesses was somehow restricted, on the record AML's counsel seems 
    to have affirmatively waived his right to ``go back into the prior 
    case,'' at the hearing before Judge Bittner. Thus, given the complete 
    record of AML's notice, opportunity and access to evidence, and AML's 
    own actions before Judge Bittner, the Deputy Administrator finds that 
    AML's procedural due process rights were not violated by the manner in 
    which these proceedings were conducted.
        Further, AML objected to the fact that Judge Bittner did not 
    consider all factors listed in 21 U.S.C. 823(f). As has been previously 
    noted, the Deputy Administrator may review those factors in the 
    disjunctive, and he need not make a finding as to each factor. However, 
    as requested by AML, the Deputy Administrator notes that the record 
    contains no evidence to indicate that AML has been convicted of any 
    federal or state law violations. The remainder of AML's exceptions have 
    been previously addressed.
        G & O Pharmacy also filed exceptions to Judge Bittner's opinion. 
    Specifically, G & O objected to Judge Bittner's placing reliance upon 
    the results of the DEA audit. The reliability of the audit results has 
    been addressed by the Deputy Administrator, and needs no further 
    comment here. Second, the Respondent G & O asserts that Judge Bittner 
    erred in admitting hearsay evidence during the administrative hearing. 
    However, since the Respondent's hearing was conducted in accordance 
    with applicable statutes and regulations, the Deputy Administrator 
    declines to adopt the Respondent's exceptions based upon his challenged 
    evidentiary rulings. See, e.g., Klinestiver v. Drug Enforcement 
    Administration, 606 F.2d 1128, 1129-30 (D.C. Cir. 1979); Gary E. 
    Stanford, M.D., No. 91-30, 58 Fed. Reg. 14,430 (1993). As to the 
    probative value, reliability, and ``fairness of its use,'' the Deputy 
    Administrator finds that Judge Bittner addressed these issues in her 
    opinion, that he concurs with her findings, and that no further comment 
    is required.
        Therefore, after review of the entire record, the Deputy 
    Administrator finds that the public interest is best served by revoking 
    AML's Certificate of Registration. The Deputy Administrator notes that 
    pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.62, the transfer of ownership of G & O Pharmacy 
    to AML effectively terminated all authority granted under DEA 
    Certificate of Registration AG2999691, previously issued to G & O 
    Pharmacy. See 21 CFR 1301.62 and 1301.63. 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 DEA Certificate of Registration 
    BA3838553, previously issued to AML Corporation, is revoked and any 
    pending applications denied at this time. This order is effective April 
    5, 1996.
    
        Dated: February 29, 1996.
    Stephen H. Greene,
    Deputy Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 96-5141 Filed 3-5-96; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
    
    

Document Information

Published:
03/06/1996
Department:
Drug Enforcement Administration
Entry Type:
Notice
Document Number:
96-5141
Pages:
8973-8977 (5 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Docket No. 94-34 and 92-78
PDF File:
96-5141.pdf