[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 158 (Wednesday, August 17, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-20178]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: August 17, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Anthony L. Cappelli, M.D.; Revocation of Registration
On April 25, 1994, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an
Order to Show Cause to Anthony L. Cappelli, M.D. (Respondent), of Los
Angeles, California, proposing to revoke Respondent's DEA Certificate
of Registration, BC2901230, as a practitioner. The Order to Show Cause
alleged that Respondent's registration would be inconsistent with the
public interest as that term is used in 21 U.S.C. 823(f). Specifically,
the Order to Show Cause alleged that between January 1992 and February
1993, Respondent allowed an unauthorized person to order controlled
substances by permitting this person to use Respondent's DEA number;
this person also used Respondent's DEA number to issue unauthorized
prescriptions during this time period in question; this person used the
controlled substances obtained in this manner to perform unlawful
abortions, one of which resulted in the death of one of the patients;
and Respondent dispensed controlled substances at an unregistered
location during the time period in question.
The Order to Show Cause was sent to Respondent by registered mail.
More than thirty days have passed since the Order to Show Cause was
received by Respondent and the DEA has received no response thereto.
Pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.54(d) and 1301.54(e), Respondent is deemed to
have waived his opportunity for a hearing. Accordingly, the Deputy
Administrator now enters his final order in this matter without a
hearing and based upon the investigative file. 21 CFR 1301.57.
In January of 1993, the Santa Ana Police Department discovered the
body of a female in an alley, at or near a medical clinic, the Clinica
Femenina (clinic). Subsequent investigation revealed that the death of
the female was caused by a failed abortion attempt performed at the
clinic by the owner who was not authorized to practice medicine (and
thus not licensed to perform abortions) in the State of California. An
autopsy revealed that diazepam, a Schedule IV controlled substance, was
in the deceased's system.
A search warrant was served on the clinic by the Santa Ana Police
Department on January 21, 1993. The search revealed that the owner had
ordered over 8,000 dosage units of controlled substances using
Respondent's DEA number. The search also revealed that the owner issued
prescriptions for various controlled substances using Respondent's DEA
number. The clinic was not Respondent's DEA registered location and, in
fact, did not have a DEA registration. The owner was subsequently
arrested by the Santa Ana police and charged with manslaughter and the
matter is pending trial at this time.
Shortly after the search warrant was served, Respondent was
interviewed by the Santa Ana police and an investigator of the
California Medical Board. Respondent admitted to them that he allowed
the clinic to use his DEA registration number to order controlled
substances to obtain drugs used in conjunction with abortions.
Respondent explained that he was hired to perform abortions on an as
needed basis and was paid $80 for each abortion. He performed an
abortion about once a week or every other week. He was aware that the
owner was not a licensed physician. He was not aware that the owner had
issued controlled substance prescriptions using his DEA number.
Respondent also noted that there were occasions that the owner called
him to perform an abortion on short notice but that Respondent was
unable to make the appointment. When Respondent inquired of the owner
how the operation had been performed, she simply explained that the
patient ``had been taken care of''. Respondent also explained that the
owner had witnessed him perform abortions on numerous occasions and
that she could probably perform the operation, barring any unforeseen
complications.
In evaluating whether Respondent's registration by the Drug
Enforcement Administration would be inconsistent with the public
interest, the Deputy Administrator considers the factors enumerated in
21 U.S.C. 823(f). They are as follows:
(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 and
safety.
In determining whether a registration would be inconsistent with
the public interest, the Deputy Administrator is not required to make
findings with respect to each of the factors listed above. Instead, he
has the discretion to give each factor the weight he deems appropriate,
depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. See David E.
Trawick, D.D.S., Docket No. 88-69, 53 FR 5326 (1988).
In this proceeding factors, two, four and five apply. Respondent
allowed an unauthorized person to use his DEA number to order
controlled substances for dispensing and administering controlled
substances at an unregistered location. Respondent allowed the clinic's
owner to acquire and dispense controlled substances through the use of
Respondent's DEA registration number. Under the circumstances,
Respondent knew or should have known that the clinic's owner would use
his DEA number, not only for ordering, dispensing and issuing
prescriptions for controlled substances, but also for administering
during unauthorized abortions.
By allowing an unregistered and unauthorized person to use his DEA
number, Respondent was responsible for any use and misuse of that
number. Moreover, such a violation is aggravated by the fact that
Respondent allowed a non-practitioner to use his DEA number at an
unregistered location.
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, BC2901230, previously issued to
Anthony L. Cappelli, M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked, and any
pending applications for the renewal of such registration, be, and they
are, denied. This order is effective September 16, 1994.
Dated: August 11, 1994.
Stephen H. Greene,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-20178 Filed 8-16-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
