[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 78 (Friday, April 22, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-9707]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: April 22, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 92-53]
Vincent D. Bradley, M.D.; Revocation of Registration
On May 6, 1992, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an
Order to Show Cause to Vincent D. Bradley, M.D. (Respondent), of
Encinitas, California, proposing to revoke his DEA Certificate of
Registration, AB4593908, and to deny any pending applications for
registration as a practitioner. The statutory basis for the Order to
Show Cause was that Respondent's continued registration would be
inconsistent with the public interest as that term is used in 21 U.S.C.
823(f), and 824(a)(4), in that on seven occasions during the period
January 1989 to September 1989, the Respondent prescribed Schedule IV
controlled substances, Fastin and Valium, to undercover officers for no
legitimate medical purpose and not in the course of professional
medical practice; and that on October 24, 1990, he was convicted, under
State law, of one misdemeanor count of neglecting to preserve records
of the disposition of dangerous drugs.
The Respondent, by counsel, responded to the Order to Show Cause
and requested a hearing. Counsel for the Government filed a motion for
summary disposition on October 21, 1992, alleging that in July of 1992,
the Respondent had entered a stipulation with the California Medical
Board (Board) in which the Respondent agreed to refrain from the
practice of medicine until he had undergone an independent physical and
psychiatric examination ordered by the Board. The Government argued
that Respondent's authority to handle controlled substances had been,
in effect, surrendered to the California State Medical Board on August
20, 1992. The respondent filed its opposition to the Government's
motion, and on January 8, 1993, the administrative law judge denied the
Government's motion on grounds that there still existed an issue of
fact to be decided as to the intent of the State stipulation.
On September 21, 1993, the Government renewed its motion for
summary disposition alleging that the Respondent no longer held State
authorization to handle controlled substances for the reason that he
entered into a Stipulation with the California Medical Board for the
surrender of his medical license on July 7, 1993. This surrender became
effective August 9, 1993. The Respondent did not file any response to
the Government's motion.
On October 18, 1993, the administrative law judge entered an order
granting the Government's motion for summary disposition and
recommended that the Respondent's registration be revoked. No
exceptions were filed by either party. The administrative law judge
transmitted the record to the Administrator on January 18, 1994.
The Administrator has considered the record in its entirety and,
under the provision of 21 CFR 1316.67, enters his final order in this
matter, based on findings of fact and conclusions of law as hereinafter
set forth.
No evidentiary hearing was held in this case as there were no
factual issues involved, only a question of law. Judge Tenney found
that the Respondent had entered into a stipulation with the Medical
Board of California under which the Respondent is no longer permitted
to practice as a physician and surgeon in the State of California, the
jurisdiction in which the Respondent is registered with the DEA. Judge
Tenney concluded that DEA has no authority to maintain a DEA
registration, where the registrant is without State authority to handle
controlled substances.
The DEA has consistently held that it does not have statutory
authority under the Controlled Substances Act to register a
practitioner unless that practitioner is authorized by the State to
handle controlled substances. The Administrator has consistently held
that termination of a registrant's State authority to handle controlled
substances requires that DEA revoke the registrant's DEA Certificate of
Registration. See Bobby Watts, M.D., 53 FR 11919 (1987); Lawrence R.
Alexander, M.D., 57 FR 22256 (1992).
The Administrator adopts the findings and recommendation of the
administrative law judge. Based on the foregoing, the Administrator
concludes that the Respondent's registration must be revoked. 21 U.S.C.
823(a)(3). Accordingly, the 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), hereby orders that DEA Certificate of
Registration, AB4593908, previously issued to Vincent D. Bradley, M.D.,
be, and it hereby is, revoked, and that any pending applications for
registration, be, and they hereby are, denied. This order is effective
on April 22, 1994.
Dated: April 18, 1994.
Thomas A. Constantine,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-9707 Filed 4-21-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
