[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 150 (Friday, August 4, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39969-39970]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-19168]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 94-16]
Barnett J.W. Grier, Jr., M.D., Revocation of Registration
On November 1, 1993, the Deputy Assistant Administrator (then-
Director), Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA), issued an Order to Show Cause to Barnett J.W. Grier, Jr., M.D.
of Beverly Hills, California (Respondent), proposing to revoke his DEA
Certificate of Registration, BG2764226, and deny any pending
applications for registration as a practitioner. The statutory basis
for the Order to Show Cause was that the continued registration of
Respondent was inconsistent with the public interest and that
Respondent was no longer authorized to handle controlled substances in
the State of California. 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a) (3) and (4).
On December 9, 1993, Respondent requested a hearing and the
proceeding was docketed before Administrative Law Judge Mary Ellen
Bittner. Following filing of prehearing statements by both parties, the
Government filed a motion for summary disposition on November 30, 1994.
No response was filed by Respondent. No evidentiary hearing was held as
there were no factual issues involved, only a question of law. The
administrative law judge issued her opinion and recommended decision on
December 23, 1994. No exception were filed by either party.
On January 23, 1995, the administrative law judge transmitted the
record of the proceeding to the Deputy Administrator. After careful
consideration of the record in its entirety, the Deputy Administrator
enters his final order in this matter, in accordance with 21 CFR
1316.67, based on conclusions of law and facts contained in the record
which were not disputed, as set forth herein.
On October 24, 1987, the California Medical Board suspended
Respondent's state medical license for ninety days and placed him on
probation for eight years upon a finding that Respondent failed to
supervise a physician's assistant and that such failure constituted an
extreme departure from the Standard of medical practice in Southern
California. On May 13, 1991, Respondent falsified an application for a
new DEA Certificate of Registration by answering ``no'' to the
liability question concerning revocation, suspension, denial,
restriction, or probation of state professional license or controlled
substance registration.
On October 2, 1992, the California Medical Board petitioned to
revoke Respondent's probation because he had violated the terms of his
probation by issuing numerous prescriptions for controlled substances,
including Promethazine with codeine, Emperin with codeine, Tylenol #3
with codeine, and Phenergan with codeine for other than a legitimate
medical purpose. The California Medical Board also found that
Respondent had prescribed, dispensed or furnished dangerous drugs
without a good faith prior medical examination; and submitted Quarterly
Reports, executed under penalty of perjury, falsely reporting
compliance with both Federal and State laws. On February 29, 1993,
Respondent pled nolo contendere in absentia to six counts of state
criminal charges involving controlled substances. On August 3, 1993,
the California Medical Board revoked Respondent's license to practice
medicine in the State of California effective September 3, 1993.
On October 14, 1992, Respondent requested a modification of his DEA
registration from California to Georgia. On November 3, 1994, the
Georgia Composite State Board of Medical Examiners revoked Respondent's
license to practice medicine in the State of Georgia. Respondent does
not deny that he is not licensed in California or Georgia.
DEA has consistently held that it does not have statutory authority
under the Controlled Substances Act to register a practitioner unless
that practitioner is authorized to dispense controlled substances by
the state in which he proposes to practice. See Lawrence R. Alexander,
M.D., 57 FR 22256 (1992); Bobby Watts, M.D., 53 FR 11919 (1988); Robert
F. Witek, D.D.S., 52 FR 4770 (1987). In such cases, a motion for
summary disposition is properly entertained. There is no need for a
plenary evidentiary hearing since there are no questions of fact to be
resolved by such a hearing. Phillip E. Kirk, M.D., 48 FR 32887 (1983),
aff'd sub nom, Kirk v. Mullen, 749 F.2d 297 (6th Cir. 1984); Floyd A.
Santner, M.D., 47 FR 51831 (1982). Therefore, because Respondent is no
longer authorized to handle controlled substances in the State of
California or the State of Georgia, the states in which Respondent
proposes to practice, the Deputy Administrator cannot permit him to
maintain a DEA Certificate of Registration in either state.
Accordingly, the Deputy Administrator of the Drug Enforcement
Administration, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823 and 824 and 28 CFR 0.100(b)
and 0.104, hereby orders that DEA Certificate of Registration,
BG2764226, previously issued to Barnett J.W. Grier, Jr., M.D., be, and
it is hereby, revoked, and any pending application for renewal of such
registration be, and they hereby are, denied, and that any request for
modification be, and it hereby is, denied. This order is effective
September 5, 1995.
[[Page 39970]]
Dated: July 28, 1995.
Stephen H. Greene,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-19168 Filed 8-3-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
