[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 24, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-12568]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: May 24, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[Docket No. 93-31]
Steven W. Patwell, M.D.; Continuation of Registration
On January 28, 1993, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an
Order to Show Cause to Steven W. Patwell, M.D., (Respondent), 866
Plumas Street, suite B, Yuba City, California 95991. The Order to Show
Cause sought to revoke Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration,
BP0597508, and deny any pending applications for renewal of such
registration. The Order to Show Cause alleged 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).
More specifically, the Order to Show Cause asserted that on
November 7, 1990, a search warrant was executed at Respondent's
residence. During the execution of the warrant, police officers found
one and one-half pounds of marijuana, trace amounts of cocaine and
methamphetamine, and assorted drug paraphernalia. The Order to Show
Cause referred to Respondent's February 15, 1991, plea in the Superior
Court of California, County of Placer, of nolo contendere to a
misdemeanor charge of possession of marijuana. The Order to Show Cause
further pointed to the action of the Division of Medical Quality of the
Medical Board of California (Board.) On June 22, 1992, the Board
accepted a Stipulation in Settlement staying revocation of Respondent's
physician and surgeon certificate and placing said certificate on
probation for a period of five years.
Respondent, through counsel, requested a hearing on the allegations
raised in the Order to Show Cause and the matter was placed on the
docket of Administrative Law Judge Paul A. Tenney. On August 18, 1993,
a hearing was held in Sacramento, California. On September 29, 1993,
the administrative law judge issued his opinion, recommended ruling,
findings of fact and conclusions of law. Neither the Government nor
Respondent filed exceptions to the recommended ruling. On October 29,
1993, the administrative law judge transmitted the record in this
proceeding to the Administrator. Having considered the record in its
entirety, and pursuant to 21 CFR 1316.67, the Deputy Administrator
hereby issues his final order in this matter based upon the findings of
fact and conclusions of law set forth below.
Testimony provided at the hearing by a Roseville Police officer
revealed that during the execution of a search warrant at Respondent's
residence, officers found 81 individually wrapped plastic baggies
containing marijuana, approximately one and one-half pounds in total.
In addition, the officers found drug paraphernalia, including roach
clips, pipes and bongs, a green powder sifter containing trace amounts
of cocaine, a small glass vial containing methamphetamine, ephedrine
tablets, an Ohaus triple beam scale, a grooved mirror with the image of
a $100 bill which also contained trace amounts of cocaine and assorted
prescription bottles.
At the hearing, Mrs. Patwell testified that, with the exception of
the prescription bottles, all of the contraband found at the Patwell
residence during execution of the search warrant belonged to her. She
stated that she had had a drug problem since age 14 but that she had
been drug-free since November 1990. Mrs. Patwell further explained that
she packaged the marijuana in small plastic baggies in order to limit
her daily consumption and hid her use of drugs from her husband.
Respondent testified that he was not aware that his wife had been
storing marijuana, cocaine and methamphetamine in their house. While he
knew that his wife used marijuana, Respondent explained that he usually
chose to ignore the situation and chose not to confront his wife about
her drug use. With respect to the Ohaus triple beam scale found in his
house, Respondent stated that he was a scale collector and that the
scale was simply one of many scales in his collection. According to
Respondent, the prescription bottles found by the police were
mistakenly brought home by him after patients from the office gave them
to him.
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a)(4), the Deputy
Administrator may revoke a DEA Certificate of Registration or deny any
application for 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
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; and, (5) such other conduct which may threaten
the public health and safety.
The Deputy Administrator may rely on any one or any combination of
these factors when determining whether an application should be denied
or a registration revoked. See Neveille H. Williams, D.D.S., 51 FR
17556 (1986); Anne L Hendricks, M.D., 51 FR 41030 (1986). The
administrative law judge correctly noted that factors (4) and (5) were
relevant to a determination of whether Respondent's continued
registration would be in the public interest.
With respect to factor (4), the administrative law judge found that
Respondent's nolo contendere plea to a misdemeanor charge of possession
of marijuana was not intended as an admission of guilt. Rather, the
plea was entered in an effort to resolve the case without submitting to
the risks of litigation. The administrative law judge found the
explanations regarding the marijuana, cocaine and methamphetamine of
both Mrs. Patwell and Respondent to be credible. With respect to the
prescription bottles found in the Patwell residence, the administrative
law judge noted that such storage was in violation of DEA regulations.
The administrative law judge, however, found convincing Respondent's
explanation and concluded that the violation was inadvertent.
Turning his attention to factor (5), the administrative law judge
noted that regardless of Respondent's lack of wrongdoing with respect
to the marijuana, the fact remains that approximately one and one-half
pounds of marijuana were found in his home, as were trace amounts of
other drugs and drug paraphernalia. The administrative law judge
commented that greater diligence on the part of Respondent should be
expected. Consequently, the administrative law judge recommended that
three conditions be applied to the continuation of Respondent's
registration. First, Respondent shall not allow any controlled
substances, other than those prescribed by a doctor other than
Respondent for a legitimate medical need, to be kept in his home.
Second, Respondent must report to the local DEA office and appropriate
law enforcement authorities any illegal use of controlled substances by
any individual. Third, Respondent must report to the local DEA office
and appropriate law enforcement authorities any controlled substances,
except those prescribed by a doctor for a legitimate medical need,
found in his home. The Deputy Administrator agrees with the
administrative law judge that Respondent's registration should not be
revoked and adopts his findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
recommended ruling in its entirety.
While the Deputy Administrator finds the recommendation of the
administrative law judge to be appropriate, this decision should in no
way be interpreted as an endorsement of the past behavior of either
Mrs. Patwell or Respondent. Respondent's testimony indicates that he
recognizes that his failure to take action in the face of his wife's
drug abuse was both unprofessional and unacceptable. Respondent's
remorse for his past inaction and his apparent commitment to a more
responsible future lead to the conclusion that revocation would not be
appropriate.
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 Steven W.
Patwell, M.D.'s DEA Certificate of Registration, BP0597508, be, and it
hereby is, continued. This order is effective May 24, 1994.
Dated: May 17, 1994.
Stephen H. Greene,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-12568 Filed 5-23-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
