[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 176 (Monday, September 13, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49506-49507]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-23669]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 99-12]
Frank D. Jackson, M.D.; Revocation of Registration
On December 17, 1998, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) issued an
Order to Show Cause to Frank D. Jackson, M.D. (Respondent) of Boston,
Massachusetts, notifying him of an opportunity to show cause as to why
DEA should not revoke his DEA Certificate of Registration AJ8888806
pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4), and deny any pending applications for
renewal of such registration pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f), for reason
that his continued registration would be inconsistent with the public
interest.
By letter dated January 28, 1999, Respondent requested a hearing on
the issues raised by the order to Show Cause and the matter was
docketed before Administrative Law Judge Mary Ellen Bittner. On
February 19, 1999, Judge Bittner issued an Order for Prehearing
Statements. The Government filed its prehearing statement on March 10,
1999, but Respondent did not file a prehearing statement.
On April 20, 1999, the Government filed a Motion for Summary
Disposition and a Motion to Terminate the Proceedings. The Government's
motions alleged that (1) Respondent is not currently licensed to handle
controlled substances in the state where he is registered with DEA, and
(2) Respondent's failure to file a prehearing statement acts as a
waiver of his right to a hearing. Respondent was given until May 18,
1999, to file a response to the Government's motions, yet he did not do
so.
On May 27, 1999, Judge Bittner issued her Opinion and Recommended
Decision, finding that Respondent lacks authorization to handle
controlled substances in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; granting
the Government's Motion for Summary Disposition; recommending that
[[Page 49507]]
Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration be revoked; and concluding
that having granted the Government's Motion for Summary Disposition, it
is unnecessary to rule on the Government's Motion to Terminate. Neither
party filed exceptions to her opinion, and on June 28, 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 the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, Board of Registration in Medicine suspended Respondent's
Massachusetts medical license, effective March 10, 1999. As a result,
the Deputy Administrator concludes that Respondent is not currently
authorized to practice medicine in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
and therefore,it is reasonable to infer that he is not currently
authorized to handle controlled substances in that state.
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 currently authorized to
handle controlled substances in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
where he is registered with DEA. As a result, he is not entitled to a
DEA registration in that state.
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 not currently authorized to handle
controlled substances in California. Therefore, it is well-settled that
when no question of fact is involved, or when the material facts are
agreed upon, a plenary, adversarial proceeding involving evidence and
cross-examination of witnesses is not required. See Jesus R. Juarez,
M.D., 62 FR 14945 (1997). The rationale is that Congress does not
intend administrative agencies to perform meaningless tasks. See Philip
E. Kirk, M.D., 48 FR 32887 (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).
Since DEA does not have the statutory authority to maintain
Respondent's DEA registration because he is not currently authorized to
handle controlled substances in Massachusetts, the Deputy Administrator
concludes that it is unnecessary to determine whether Respondent's
continued registration would be inconsistent with the public interest,
as alleged in the Order to Show Cause.
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 DEA
Certificate of Registration AJ8888806, previously issued to Frank D.
Jackson, M.D., 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
October 13, 1999.
Dated: August 24, 1999.
Donnie R. Marshall,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-23669 Filed 9-10-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
