[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 155 (Friday, August 12, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-19701]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: August 12, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[Docket No. 93-76]
Diana J. Smith, M.D., Revocation of Registration
On August 9, 1993, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an
Order to Show Cause to Diana J. Smith, M.D. (Respondent). The Order to
Show Cause sought to revoke Respondent's DEA Certificate of
Registration, AS2966919, issued to her in Arizona and to 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).
Respondent filed a timely request for a hearing. The matter was
docketed before Administrative Law Judge Mary Ellen Bittner. Before the
hearing could be scheduled, the Arizona Board of Medical Examiners
(Board) entered into a consent decree with Respondent, in which
Respondent voluntarily relinquished her license to practice medicine in
the State of Arizona, effective October 14, 1993. The Government then
filed a motion for summary disposition based upon the Board's order,
alleging that since Respondent was not currently authorized to handle
controlled substances in the State of Arizona, DEA could not continue
to register Respondent in that state. Respondent filed a response to
this motion, arguing that her DEA registration should not be revoked
because she still had current medical licenses in two other states,
Virginia and North Carolina, and was applying for medical licensure in
the State of Washington where she currently resides.
On April 18, 1994, the administrative law judge issued her opinion
and recommended decision. The administrative law judge stated that the
motion for summary disposition was warranted as there was no question
of material fact involved. Furthermore, she explained in her opinion
that the only relevant medical license was the one that Respondent
formerly held in Arizona, since Respondent's DEA registration was
issued to her in that state. The administrative law judge then noted
that the DEA lacks statutory power to register a practitioner unless
the practitioner holds state authority to handle controlled substances
and concluded that Respondent is without authority to handle controlled
substances in the State of Arizona. Consequently, the administrative
law judge granted the Government's motion for summary disposition and
recommended that Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration be
revoked. No exceptions were filed and on May 23, 1994, the entire
record of these proceedings was transmitted to the Deputy
Administrator.
After a careful review of the record in this matter, the Deputy
Administrator adopts the administrative law judge's opinion and
recommended decision. As DEA has consistently held, the DEA does not
have the authority under the Controlled Substances Act to grant a
registration to a practitioner if that practitioner is not authorized
by a state to handle controlled substances. See Ramon Pla, M.D., Docket
No. 86-54, 51 FR 41168 (1986); George S. Heath, M.D. Docket No. 86-24,
51 FR 26610 (1986); Dale D. Shahan, D.D.S., Docket No. 85-57, 51 FR
23481 (1986). There is no evidence in the record to contradict the
Government's position that Respondent's Arizona medical license has
been revoked and that her authority to handle controlled substances in
the State of Arizona has been nullified. Furthermore, Respondent has
not requested modification of her DEA registration to one of the two
states where she currently holds medical licenses. Consequently,
revocation of Respondent's DEA registration is warranted.
The Deputy Administrator concurs with the administrative law
judge's granting of the Government's motion for summary disposition. In
the absence of a question of material fact, a plenary adversary
administrative proceeding is not required. See United States v.
Consolidated Mines and Smelting Company, Ltd., 445 F.2d 432, 453 (9th
Cir. 1971); N.L.R.B. v. International Association of Bridge, Structural
and Ornamental Ironworkers, AFL-CIO, 549 F.2d 64 (9th Cir. 1977);
Alfred Tennyson Smurthwaite, N.D., Docket No. 77-29, 43 FR 11873
(1978).
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 (59 FR 23637), hereby orders
that DEA Certificate of Registration, AS2966919, previously issued to
Diana J. Smith, M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked and that any
pending applications for renewal of such registration be, and they
hereby are, denied. This order is effective August 12, 1994.
Dated: August 5, 1994.
Stephen H. Greene,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-19701 Filed 8-11-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
