[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 144 (Wednesday, July 28, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40899-40900]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-19181]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 99-8]
Mark L. Beck, D.D.S.; Revocation of Registration
On November 17, 1998, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) issued an
Order to Show Cause to Mark L. Beck, D.D.S. (Respondent) of Washington,
DC. The Order to Show Cause notified Dr. Beck of an opportunity to show
cause as to why DEA should not revoke his DEA Certificate of
Registration BB3603114 pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), for reason that
he is not currently authorized to handle controlled substances in the
District of Columbia.
On December 3, 1998, Respondent, through counsel, filed a request
for a hearing and the matter was docketed before Administrative Law
Judge Mary Ellen Bittner. On December 8, 1998, Judge Bittner issued an
Order for Prehearing Statements. In lieu of filing a prehearing
statement, the Government filed a Motion for Summary Disposition on
December 14, 1998, alleging that Respondent is currently registered
with DEA to handle controlled substances in the District of Columbia,
however he is currently without state authority to handle controlled
substances in the District of Columbia. Although given an opportunity
to file a response to the Government's motion, Respondent did not do
so.
On January 15, 1999, Judge Bittner issued her Opinion and
Recommended Ruling, finding that Respondent lacks authorization to
handle controlled substances in the District of Columbia; 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 February 17, 1999, Judge
Bittner transmitted the record of these proceedings to the Deputy
Administrator.
The 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 Deputy Administrator adopts, in full, the Opinion and Recommended
Decision of the Administrative Law Judge.
The Deputy Administrator finds that in its Motion for Summary
Disposition, the Government asserted that Respondent's District of
Columbia controlled substances registration
[[Page 40900]]
expired on March 30, 1997, and his license to practice dentistry in the
District of Columbia expired on December 31, 1997. According to the
Government neither of these licenses were renewed.
The Deputy Administrator further finds that while there is no
documentation in the record to support the Government's assertions,
Respondent did not dispute that his licenses to practice dentistry and
to handle controlled substances in the District of Columbia both
expired without being renewed. Therefore, the Deputy Administrator
finds that Respondent is not currently authorized to handle controlled
substances in the District of Columbia, where he is registered with
DEA.
The 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 his business. See 21 U.S.C. 802(21),
823(f), and 824(a)(3). This prerequisite has been consistently upheld.
See Romeo J. Perez, M.D., 62 FR 16,193 (1997); Demetris A. Green, M.D.,
61 FR 60,728 (1996); Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 FR 51,104 (1993).
Here it is clear that Respondent is not licensed to handle
controlled substances in the District of Columbia. Since Respondent
lacks this authority, he is not entitled to a DEA registration there.
In light of the above, Judge Bittner properly granted the
Government's Motion for Summary Disposition. The parties did not
dispute the fact that Respondent is currently unauthorized to handle
controlled substances in the District of Columbia. 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 Philip E. Kirk,
M.D., 48 FR 32,887 (1983), aff'd sub nom Kirk v. Mullen, 749 F.2d 297
(6th Cir. 1984); See also 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).
According, 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
Certificates of Registration BB3603114, previously issued to Mark L.
Beck, D.D.S., be, and it hereby is, revoked. The Deputy Administrator
further orders that any pending applications for renewal of such
registration be, and they hereby are, denied. This order is effective
August 27, 1999.
Dated: June 23, 1999.
Donnie R. Marshall,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-19181 Filed 7-27-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
