Roger A. Rodriguez, M.D., Denial of Registration, 33206-33207 [05-11243]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
33206
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 7, 2005 / Notices
probationary period was over did not
justify a negative answer to the
question, as it asked whether the
applicant ‘‘ever’’ had discipline take
against a state license.
The Deputy Administrator also agrees
with Judge Bittner’s conclusions, made
after observing Respondent’s demeanor,
that ‘‘Respondent’s explanations for the
misstatements and his continued
insistence that his answers were correct
are disingenuous at best’’ and that he
materially falsified the applications,
which establishes grounds for revoking
his registrations under 21 U.S.C.
824(a)(1).2
As Judge Bittner notes in her Opinion
and Recommended Ruling, the
governing statute is discretionary. See
Mary Thomson, M.D. 65 FR 75,969
(2000). In exercising discretion in
determining the appropriate remedy in
any given case, the Deputy
Administrator considers all the facts
and circumstances of the case. See
Martha Hernandez, M.D., supra, 62 FR
61,145.
In recommending revocation of
Respondent’s registrations, Judge Bittner
concluded,
registration would be inconsistent with
the public interest, he materially
falsified four applications for renewal of
registration, which constitutes an
independent ground for revocation.
The Deputy Administrator shares
Judge Bittner’s concern regarding
Respondent’s on-going refusal or
inability to acknowledge a registrant’s
responsibility to provide forthright and
complete information to DEA, when
required to do so as a matter of law or
regulation. This attitude, reflected most
recently in his testimony at the hearing
under oath, does not auger well for his
future compliance with the
responsibilities of a registrant.
Accordingly, the Deputy
Administrator of the Drug Enforcement
Administration, pursuant to the
authority vested in her by 21 U.S.C. 823
and 824 and 28 CFR 0.100(b), and 0.104,
hereby orders the DEA Certificates of
Registration BP3420344 and BP4416029,
issued to Felix K. Prakasam, M.D., be,
and hereby are, revoked. The Deputy
Administrator further orders that any
pending applications to renew or
modify said registrations be denied.
This order is effective July 7, 2005.
False statements on an application for DEA
registration withhold from DEA information
that is germane to the applicant’s fitness to
hold that registration. Kuen H. Chen, M.D.,
58 FR 65401 (DEA 1993). Further, as
discussed above, Respondent insisted that
his answers to the questions on his 1998 and
2001 applications for renewal of his DEA
registrations were accurate.
They were not. In addition and also
discussed above, Respondent’s explanations
of his answers on these applications were at
best disingenuous. Respondent’s cavalier
attitude toward his responsibility to
truthfully answer questions on the
application raises serious concerns about
whether he is willing to accept the other
responsibilities inherent in a DEA
registration.
Dated: May 25, 2005.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05–11248 Filed 6–6–05; 8:45 am]
The Deputy Administrator has
examined the record and finds the facts
and credibility determinations of Judge
Bittner to be well supported by the
evidence. While the record does not
establish that Respondent’s continued
2 Respondent signed the Consent Order with the
Louisiana Board on February 2, 2001, however it
was not effective until March 20, 2001. Judge
Bittner noted that the 2001 DEA applications,
which Respondent signed on February 27 and 28,
2001, did not specifically ask whether any
disciplinary proceedings were then ‘‘pending.’’
Accordingly, she concluded that, ‘‘at least arguably,
Respondent was not required to disclose the
Louisiana action inasmuch as it was not effective
until March 20, 2001.’’ While, given the wording of
the application’s questions, Respondent’s omissions
in failing to report this action may not have
amounted to material misrepresentations under 21
USC 824(a)(1), it demonstrates his willingness to
draw exceptionally fine lines in dealing with DEA
regulators.
VerDate jul<14>2003
20:54 Jun 06, 2005
Jkt 205001
BILLING CODE 4410–09–M
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 05–9]
Roger A. Rodriguez, M.D., Denial of
Registration
On October 8, 2004, the Deputy
Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA), issued an Order
to Show Cause to Roger A. Rodriguez,
M.D. (Respondent) of Peoria, Illinois,
notifying him of an opportunity to show
cause as to why DEA should not deny
his application for a DEA Certificate of
Registration as a practitioner pursuant
to 21 U.S.C. 823(f).
As a basis for denial, the Order to
Show Cause alleged, in substance, that
Respondent: (1) Issued prescriptions
and dispensed controlled substances to
undercover law enforcement personnel
on multiple occasions without an
adequate physical examination or bona
fide medical reason; (2) failed to
maintain required controlled substance
records; and (3) surrendered a prior
DEA registration on June 19, 2003, and
then used another practitioner’s DEA
PO 00000
Frm 00152
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
registration number to issue a
prescription for controlled substances.
Respondent, through counsel, timely
requested a hearing in this matter. On
November 22, 2004, the Presiding
Administrative Law Judge Mary Ellen
Bittner (Judge Bittner) issued the
Government, as well as Respondent, an
Order for Prehearing Statements.
In lieu of filing a prehearing
statement, the Government filed a
Motion for Summary Disposition. In its
motion the Government asserted that as
of December 20, 2004, Respondent was
no longer authorized to handle
controlled substances in Illinois, his
state of applied-for registration. As a
result, further proceedings in this matter
were not required. Attached to the
Government’s motion was a copy of the
Illinois Department of Financial and
Professional Regulation, Division of
Professional Regulation (Illinois Board)
Order dated December 20, 2004. That
Order temporarily suspended
Respondent’s Illinois medical license
and state Controlled Substances
Registration, pending further
proceedings before the Illinois Board.
On January 4, 2005, Judge Bittner
issued a Memorandum to Counsel
providing Respondent until January 18,
2005, to respond to the Government’s
motion. Respondent then filed a motion
on January 14, 2005, seeking an
extension of time to file his response to
the Government’s motion. In it, he
claimed there was a hearing scheduled
before the Illinois Board on January 18,
2005, which could impact the
suspension order. Over the
Government’s objections, Judge Bittner
granted Respondent an extension until
February 8, 2005, to file his response.
On February 8, 2005, Respondent
filed his Response to the Motion for
Summary Disposition. In that response
he did not contest that his medical and
controlled substance licenses were thensuspended, but asserted he was in
negotiations with the Illinois Board that
might result in an agreed-to four-month
suspension of his medical license.
Respondent asked Judge Bittner to stay
action on the Government’s motion
until the state disciplinary proceeding
was resolved.
On February 16, 2005, Judge Bittner
issued her Opinion and Recommended
Decision of the Administrative Law
Judge (Opinion and Recommended
Decision). As part of her recommended
ruling, Judge Bittner denied
Respondent’s request to stay the
proceedings and granted the
Government’s Motion for Summary
Disposition, finding Respondent lacked
authorization to handle controlled
substances in Illinois, the jurisdiction
E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM
07JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 7, 2005 / Notices
where he was applying for registration.
Judge Bittner recommended that
Respondent’s application for a DEA
Certificate of Registration be denied.
No exceptions were filed by either
party to Judge Bittner’s Opinion and
Recommended Decision and on March
22, 2005, the record of these
proceedings was transmitted to the
Office of the DEA Deputy
Administrator.
The Deputy Administrator has
considered the record in its entirety and
pursuant to 21 CFR 1316.67, hereby
issues her 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
Respondent previously held DEA
Certificate of Registration BR4105032,
which he surrendered on June 19, 2003,
while a Federal Search Warrant was
being executed upon his medical office.
Three weeks later, Respondent filed the
application for DEA registration which
is the subject of these proceedings.
The Deputy Administrator further
finds that, effective December 20, 2004,
Respondent’s license to practice
medicine in Illinois and his Illinois
Controlled Substances Registration were
temporarily suspended, pending further
proceedings, after the Illinois Board
found ‘‘the public interest, safety, and
welfare imperatively require emergency
action to prevent the continued practice
of the Respondent, in that Respondent’s
actions constitute an immediate danger
to the public.’’ The Illinois Board’s
action was based primarily on the facts
alleged in DEA’s Order to Show Cause,
coupled with Respondent’s violation of
an Agreement of Care, Counseling and
Treatment, which he had entered into
with state authorities.
The Deputy Administrator therefore
finds Respondent is currently not
licensed to practice medicine in Illinois
and lacks authorization to handle
controlled substances in that state.
DEA does not have 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 business. See 21 U.S.C.
802(21), 823(f) and 824(a)(3). This
prerequisite has been consistently
upheld. See Stephen J. Graham, M.D.,
69 FR 11,661 (2004), Dominick A. Ricci,
M.D., 58 FR 51,104 (1993); Bobby Watts,
M.D., 53 FR 11,919 (1988). Denial or
revocation is also appropriate when a
state license has been suspended, but
with the possibility of future
VerDate jul<14>2003
20:54 Jun 06, 2005
Jkt 205001
reinstatement. See Paramabaloth Edwin,
M.D., 69 FR 58,540 (2004); Alton E.
Ingram, Jr., M.D., 69 FR 22,562 (2004);
Anne Lazar Thorn, M.D., 62 FR 847
(1997).
Here, it is clear Respondent is not
currently licensed to handle controlled
substances in Illinois, the jurisdiction in
which he has applied for a DEA
registration. Therefore, he is not entitled
to registration in that state.
Accordingly, the Deputy
Administrator of the Drug Enforcement
Administration, pursuant to the
authority vested in her by 21 U.S.C. 823
and 824 and 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104,
hereby orders that the application for a
DEA Certificate of Registration
submitted by Roger A. Rodriguez, M.D.,
be, and it hereby is, denied. This order
is effective July 7, 2005.
Dated: May 25, 2005.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05–11243 Filed 6–6–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–M
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Robert A. Smith, M.D., Revocation of
Registration
This order serves as a correction of
the final order previously issued in this
matter and published on May 10, 2005.
On September 29, 2004, the Deputy
Administrator, Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA), issued an Order
to Show Cause/Immediate Suspension
of Registration to Robert A. Smith, M.D.
(Dr. Smith) who was notified of an
opportunity to show cause as to why
DEA should not revoke his DEA
Certificate of Registration AS6932669
under 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4) and deny any
pending applications for renewal or
modification of that registration under
21 U.S.C. 823(f). Dr. Smith was further
notified that his registration was being
immediately suspended under 21 U.S.C.
824(d) as an imminent danger to the
public health and safety.
The Order to Show Cause alleged in
relevant part, that Dr. Smith diverted
controlled substances for a substantial
time by knowingly issuing fraudulent
prescriptions to individuals, without a
bona fide doctor-patient relationship or
legitimate medical purpose. The Order
to Show Cause also notified Dr. Smith
that should no request for a hearing be
filed within 30 days, his hearing right
would be deemed waived.
On October 20, 2004, a DEA
investigator personally served the Order
to Show Cause/Immediate Suspension
PO 00000
Frm 00153
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
33207
of Registration on Dr. Smith’s attorney
at Respondent’s medical office in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Since that
date, DEA has not received a request for
a hearing or any other reply from Dr.
Smith or anyone purporting to represent
him in this matter.
Therefore, the Deputy Administrator
of DEA, finding that (1) thirty days
having passed since personal delivery of
the Order to Show Cause/Immediate
Suspension of Registration to the
registrant and (2) no request for hearing
having been received, concludes that Dr.
Smith is deemed to have waived his
hearing right. See David W. Linder, 67
FR 12,579 (2002). After considering
material from the investigative file in
this matter, the Deputy Administrator
now enters her final order without a
hearing pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(d)
and (e) and 1301.46.
The Deputy Administrator finds that
Dr. Smith is registered with DEA as a
practitioner under Certificate of
Registration AS6932669 with a
registered location at 1420 Locust Street,
Suite 200, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
In May 2003, DEA began investigating
Dr. Smith as a result of complaints from
area pharmacies that were encountering
large numbers of young, seemingly
healthy individuals, filling prescriptions
issued by Dr. Smith for OxyContin and
Percocet, both schedule II controlled
substances. These individuals paid cash
for their prescriptions and appeared to
be traveling long distances to have them
prescribed and filled.
On June 27, 2003, Independence Blue
Cross (IBC) insurance investigators
interviewed IBC beneficiary ‘‘H.B.’’
regarding prescriptions for OxyContin,
Percocet and Methadone which had
been issued by Dr. Smith under her
name and insurance data. H.B. had
never seen or heard of Dr. Smith and
had no medical conditions warranting
the prescriptions. It was also established
that H.B.’s son’s father, ‘‘M.P.,’’ was a
heroin addict and that M.P.’s sister,
‘‘L.P.,’’ who also had a history of
narcotic’s abuse, worked for Dr. Smith
as his office assistant.
On July 9, 2003, NBC investigators
interviewed ‘‘C.P.,’’ who was L.P.’s
sister. IBC’s records reflected that on
May 10, 2003, Dr. Smith issued
prescriptions for Percocet and
Alprazolam (Xanax), a schedule IV
controlled substance, using C.P.’s name
and policy, which were then paid for by
insurance company. Investigators
determined C.P. had never met or been
examined by Dr. Smith, that she did not
receive the prescriptions written in her
name and had no medical conditions
warranting them.
E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM
07JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 7, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33206-33207]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-11243]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 05-9]
Roger A. Rodriguez, M.D., Denial of Registration
On October 8, 2004, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an
Order to Show Cause to Roger A. Rodriguez, M.D. (Respondent) of Peoria,
Illinois, notifying him of an opportunity to show cause as to why DEA
should not deny his application for a DEA Certificate of Registration
as a practitioner pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f).
As a basis for denial, the Order to Show Cause alleged, in
substance, that Respondent: (1) Issued prescriptions and dispensed
controlled substances to undercover law enforcement personnel on
multiple occasions without an adequate physical examination or bona
fide medical reason; (2) failed to maintain required controlled
substance records; and (3) surrendered a prior DEA registration on June
19, 2003, and then used another practitioner's DEA registration number
to issue a prescription for controlled substances.
Respondent, through counsel, timely requested a hearing in this
matter. On November 22, 2004, the Presiding Administrative Law Judge
Mary Ellen Bittner (Judge Bittner) issued the Government, as well as
Respondent, an Order for Prehearing Statements.
In lieu of filing a prehearing statement, the Government filed a
Motion for Summary Disposition. In its motion the Government asserted
that as of December 20, 2004, Respondent was no longer authorized to
handle controlled substances in Illinois, his state of applied-for
registration. As a result, further proceedings in this matter were not
required. Attached to the Government's motion was a copy of the
Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, Division
of Professional Regulation (Illinois Board) Order dated December 20,
2004. That Order temporarily suspended Respondent's Illinois medical
license and state Controlled Substances Registration, pending further
proceedings before the Illinois Board.
On January 4, 2005, Judge Bittner issued a Memorandum to Counsel
providing Respondent until January 18, 2005, to respond to the
Government's motion. Respondent then filed a motion on January 14,
2005, seeking an extension of time to file his response to the
Government's motion. In it, he claimed there was a hearing scheduled
before the Illinois Board on January 18, 2005, which could impact the
suspension order. Over the Government's objections, Judge Bittner
granted Respondent an extension until February 8, 2005, to file his
response.
On February 8, 2005, Respondent filed his Response to the Motion
for Summary Disposition. In that response he did not contest that his
medical and controlled substance licenses were then-suspended, but
asserted he was in negotiations with the Illinois Board that might
result in an agreed-to four-month suspension of his medical license.
Respondent asked Judge Bittner to stay action on the Government's
motion until the state disciplinary proceeding was resolved.
On February 16, 2005, Judge Bittner issued her Opinion and
Recommended Decision of the Administrative Law Judge (Opinion and
Recommended Decision). As part of her recommended ruling, Judge Bittner
denied Respondent's request to stay the proceedings and granted the
Government's Motion for Summary Disposition, finding Respondent lacked
authorization to handle controlled substances in Illinois, the
jurisdiction
[[Page 33207]]
where he was applying for registration. Judge Bittner recommended that
Respondent's application for a DEA Certificate of Registration be
denied.
No exceptions were filed by either party to Judge Bittner's Opinion
and Recommended Decision and on March 22, 2005, the record of these
proceedings was transmitted to the Office of the DEA Deputy
Administrator.
The Deputy Administrator has considered the record in its entirety
and pursuant to 21 CFR 1316.67, hereby issues her 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 Respondent previously held DEA
Certificate of Registration BR4105032, which he surrendered on June 19,
2003, while a Federal Search Warrant was being executed upon his
medical office. Three weeks later, Respondent filed the application for
DEA registration which is the subject of these proceedings.
The Deputy Administrator further finds that, effective December 20,
2004, Respondent's license to practice medicine in Illinois and his
Illinois Controlled Substances Registration were temporarily suspended,
pending further proceedings, after the Illinois Board found ``the
public interest, safety, and welfare imperatively require emergency
action to prevent the continued practice of the Respondent, in that
Respondent's actions constitute an immediate danger to the public.''
The Illinois Board's action was based primarily on the facts alleged in
DEA's Order to Show Cause, coupled with Respondent's violation of an
Agreement of Care, Counseling and Treatment, which he had entered into
with state authorities.
The Deputy Administrator therefore finds Respondent is currently
not licensed to practice medicine in Illinois and lacks authorization
to handle controlled substances in that state.
DEA does not have 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 business. See 21 U.S.C. 802(21),
823(f) and 824(a)(3). This prerequisite has been consistently upheld.
See Stephen J. Graham, M.D., 69 FR 11,661 (2004), Dominick A. Ricci,
M.D., 58 FR 51,104 (1993); Bobby Watts, M.D., 53 FR 11,919 (1988).
Denial or revocation is also appropriate when a state license has been
suspended, but with the possibility of future reinstatement. See
Paramabaloth Edwin, M.D., 69 FR 58,540 (2004); Alton E. Ingram, Jr.,
M.D., 69 FR 22,562 (2004); Anne Lazar Thorn, M.D., 62 FR 847 (1997).
Here, it is clear Respondent is not currently licensed to handle
controlled substances in Illinois, the jurisdiction in which he has
applied for a DEA registration. Therefore, he is not entitled to
registration in that state.
Accordingly, the Deputy Administrator of the Drug Enforcement
Administration, pursuant to the authority vested in her by 21 U.S.C.
823 and 824 and 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104, hereby orders that the
application for a DEA Certificate of Registration submitted by Roger A.
Rodriguez, M.D., be, and it hereby is, denied. This order is effective
July 7, 2005.
Dated: May 25, 2005.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05-11243 Filed 6-6-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
