[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 67 (Friday, April 5, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15304-15306]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8387]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Ronald Phillips, D.O.; Revocation of Registration
On July 20, 1995, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an
Order to Show Cause to Ronald Phillips, D.O., (Respondent) of
Brookhaven, Pennsylvania, notifying him of an opportunity to show cause
as to why DEA should not revoke his DEA Certificate of Registration,
AP171048, under 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4), and deny any pending application
under 21 U.S.C. 823(f), as being inconsistent with the public interest.
Specifically, the Order to Show Cause alleged, among other things, that
(1) during the course of a DEA investigation, ``DEA investigators
identified approximately fifteen local pharmacies in which numerous
prescriptions for controlled substances in Schedules II through V were
retrieved which had been written by [the Respondent], in the names of
family members, for the purpose of obtaining controlled substances for
[his] personal use'' (2) in July of 1993, the Respondent voluntarily
enrolled in the Pennsylvania Physicians' Health Program, a program
which provides substance abuse treatment for physicians, but that in
August of 1994, DEA investigators were informed that the Respondent had
failed to comply with the terms of the treatment agreement; and (3) in
May of 1995, the Respondent was indicted by a Grand Jury in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on one
count of fraudulently obtaining controlled substances in Schedules II
through IV for his personal use in violation of 21 U.S.C. 843(a)(3).
On August 21, 1995, the Respondent, through counsel, filed a
request for a hearing. On August 28, 1995, Administrative Law Judge
Mary Ellen Bittner issued an Order for Prehearing Statements, informing
the parties of her appointment as the presiding officer in this case,
and ordering the Respondent to file his prehearing statement on or
before October 10, 1995, and the Government counsel to file her
[[Page 15305]]
prehearing statement on or before September 19, 1995. The Government
counsel timely filed her statement, but the Respondent failed to file
his statement. On October 23, 1995, Judge Bittner issued an order,
finding that the Respondent's failure to file his prehearing statement
by the ordered date indicated his intent to waive his right to a
hearing, and ordering that all further proceedings before her be
terminated and the matter presented to the Deputy Administrator for
entry of a final order pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.54(e). Accordingly, the
Deputy Administrator now enters his final order in this matter pursuant
to 21 CFRR. 1301.54(e) and 1301.57, without a hearing and based on the
investigative file and the letter submitted by the Respondent on August
21, 1995.
The Deputy Administrator finds that the Respondent is currently
registered as a Practitioner, Schedules II through V, with DEA
Certificate of Registration AP9171048, which is due to expire on March
31, 1996. On June 24, 1993, a DEA Diversion Investigator
(Investigator), in response to contact made by an investigator for the
Pennsylvania Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs, initiated
an investigation of allegations that the Respondent had issued
prescriptions for controlled substances in the name of family members,
and that he ultimately had consumed the substances himself.
Specifically, the Investigator identified fifteen pharmacies
located in Philadelphia and Delaware County, Pennsylvania, which had
filled prescriptions written by the Respondent during the period from
April of 1990 through May of 1993. The Respondent wrote 224
prescriptions for his father for, among other things, 5,675 dosage
units of Percocet and 1,735 dosage units of Vicodin. Percocet contains
oxycodone and acetaminophen, and is a Schedule II controlled substance,
and Vicodin contains hydrocodone, and is a Schedule III controlled
substance. Further, the Respondent also wrote, in the name of Thomas
Capron, approximately 146 prescriptions for 3,870 dosage units of
Percocet, 470 dosage units of Vicondin, and 20 dosage units of Vicodin
ES. Pharmacists were interviewed who stated that the Respondent
personally picked up the substances filled from these prescriptions.
The Respondent also wrote approximately 17 prescriptions for his adult
children, for approximately 243 dosage units of Vicondin, 40 dosage
units of Vicondin ES, and 90 dosage units of Percocet.
In June of 1994, the Investigator interviewed the Respondent, who
admitted that he had personally consumed Percocet and Vicodin taken
from his father's filled prescriptions. He estimated that he had
consumed approximately 30% to 40% of the controlled substances he had
prescribed for his father. Further, the Respondent admitted to the
Investigator that between 1981 and 1993, he had personally abused
prescription drugs, including Percocet, Vicodin, Valium, Lortabs,
Lorcet, and some non-controlled substances. he stated that he was
taking between 50 and 60 pills per day, counting controlled and non-
controlled substances, and that some of these substances were
controlled substance samples from his office. The Respondent also
admitted that he had consumed approximately 50% of the substances he
had prescribed for Thomas Capron. The Respondent told the Investigator
that he had written prescriptions for ``Frances Capron'', but he stated
that he did not know anyone by that name. He also stated that he had
written prescriptions in fictitious names. At the conclusion of the
interviews with the Respondent, the Investigator offered him the
opportunity to voluntarily surrender his DEA registration, but the
Respondent declined the offer.
The Investigator then interviewed Thomas Capron, who denied ever
receiving medication directly from the Respondent or ever sharing
controlled substances with him. Mr. Capron also informed the
Investigator that ``Frances Capron'' was his mother, the Respondent's
ex-mother-in-law, and that she had died in 1989.
However, the record disclosed that the Respondent had issued
prescriptions in her name in November of 1992.
In July of 1993, the Respondent signed a program agreement to
participate in supervised drug abuse treatment provided by the
Pennsylvania Physicians' Health Program (PHP). However, the
Respondent's participation in this treatment program was sporadic, and
according to the investigative record, he failed to complete the
program.
In May of 1995, the Respondent was indicted by a Grand Jury in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
on one count of obtaining controlled substances in Schedules II through
IV by fraud, misrepresentation and deceit, for his own personal use,
such personal use being outside the course of accepted medical practice
and for no legitimate medical purpose, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
843(a)(3). On September 5, 1995, the Respondent pled guilty to one
count of obtaining controlled substances by fraud, misrepresentation
and deceit, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 843(a)(3).
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a)(4), the Deputy
Administrator may revoke the Respondent's DEA Certificate of
Registration and deny and pending applications, 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 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 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
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, factors two, three, four, and five are relevant in
determining whether the Respondent's continued registration would be
inconsistent with the public interest. As to factor two, the
Respondent's ``experience in dispensing * * * controlled substances,''
the Respondent admitted that between 1981 and 1993, he had personally
abused prescription drugs, to include Percocet and Vicodin. The record
also disclosed that between April of 1990 and May of 1993, the
Respondent had prescribed controlled substances in the name of family
members and friends, had submitted the prescriptions himself to local
pharmacists for filling, and personally had consumed a large portion of
the substances. The Respondent, when interviewed by the Investigator,
admitted to this practice.
As to factor three, the Respondent's ``conviction record under
Federal or State laws relating to the * * * distribution, or dispensing
of controlled sub stances,'' and factor four, the Respondent's
``[c]ompliance with applicable State, Federal, or local laws relating
to controlled substances,'' the record contains evidence that in
[[Page 15306]]
September of 1995, the Respondent pled guilty to one count of obtaining
controlled substances by fraud, misrepresentation and deceit in
violation of 21 U.S.C. 843(a)(3).
As to factor five, ``[s]uch other conduct which may threaten the
public health or safety,'' the Deputy Administrator finds significant
that the Respondent asserted in his letter filed on August 21, 1995,
that his past violations were ``addiction-induced and that he has been
in recovery from his addiction for 2\1/2\ years.'' However, in August
of 1994, the Investigator interviewed the Medical Director of the PHP
(Director), who had stated that the Respondent had failed to complete
the treatment program. Although the urine screens he had provided were
all negative, the Respondent had missed numerous urine screen
appointments, at times missing repeated appointments for a period of
six weeks or more. The Director specifically noted the period from May
31, 1994, through July 19, 1994, during which the Respondent did not
participate in any of the required urine screens. Such conduct by the
Respondent places into question his commitment to rehabilitation and
his suitability for continued registration with the DEA.
The Respondent did not present any evidence of remorse for his past
misconduct, or evidence of rehabilitative actions taken to correct his
past unlawful behavior. Further, he provided no assurances that he
would not engage in such conduct in the future. Absent such evidence
and such assurances in this case, the Deputy Administrator finds that
continued registration of the Respondent is inconsistent with the
public interest.
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, AP9171048, issued to Ronald Phillips,
D.O., be, and it hereby is, revoked, and any pending applications are
hereby denied. This order is effective May 6, 1996.
Dated: April 1, 1996.
Stephen H. Greene,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-8387 Filed 4-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
