Kennard Kobrin, M.D., Revocation of Registration, 33199-33200 [05-11246]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 7, 2005 / Notices
would constitute a suspicious order and
no experience in the manufacture or
distribution of listed chemicals. While
given Ms. Carter’s past experience, those
findings do not apply to Respondent.
However, most significant for this and
similar cases, the Deputy Administrator
also found that ‘‘[v]irtually all of the
Respondent’s customers, consisting of
gas station and convenience stores, are
considered part of the grey market, in
which large amounts of listed chemicals
are diverted to the illicit manufacture of
amphetamine and methamphetamine.’’
Xtreme Enterprises, Inc., supra, 67 FR at
76,197.
DEA has expansively applied Xtreme
Enterprises to a multitude of applicants
and registrants seeking to do business in
the gray market. See e.g., Express
Wholesale, supra, 69 FR 62,086; Value
Wholesale, 69 FR 58,548 (2004); K & Z
Enterprises, Inc., 69 FR 51,475 (2004);
William E. ‘‘Bill’’ Smith d/b/a B & B
Wholesale, 69 FR 22,559 (2004); Branex
Incorporated, supra, 69 FR 8,682; Shop
It for Profit. 69 FR 1,311 (2003); Shani
Distributors, 69 FR 62,324 (2003).
As in those cases, Ms. Carter’s lack of
a criminal record, previous general
compliance with the law and
regulations and willingness to comply
with regulations and guard against
diversion, are far outweighed by her
intent to continue selling ephedrine and
pseudoephedrine exclusively in the gray
market. Unlawful methamphetamine
production and use is a growing public
health and safety concern throughout
the United States and specifically in the
locality where Respondent does
business. Pseudoephedrine and
ephedrine are the precursor products
used to manufacture methamphetamine
and area laboratory operators have
predominantly acquired their precursor
chemicals from the customer base
Respondent seeks to continue serving.
While Ms. Carter may intend to avoid
contributing to this problem, the risk of
diversion once her listed chemicals
enter the gray market is real, substantial
and compelling.
This reasoning has also been applied
by the Deputy Administrator in a series
of final orders published after Judge
Randall issued her Opinion and
Recommended Ruling in the matter.
See, Elk International, supra, 70 FR
24,615; TNT Distributors, Inc., supra, 70
FR 12,729; Titan Wholesale, Inc., supra,
70 FR 12,727; RAM, Inc. d/b/a
American Wholesale Distribution Corp.,
supra, 70 FR 11,693; Al-Alousi, Inc., 70
FR 3,561 (2005); Volusia Wholesale, 69
FR 69,409, (2004); Prachi Enterprises,
Inc., supra, 69 FR 69,407; CWK
Enterprises, Inc. 69 FR 69,400 (2004); J
& S Distributors, 69 FR 62,089 (2004);
VerDate jul<14>2003
20:54 Jun 06, 2005
Jkt 205001
Express Wholesale, supra, 69 FR 62,086;
Absolute Distributing, Inc., 69 FR
62,078 (2004).
In any event, Judge Randall’s
recommendation that Respondent be
allowed to continue distributing listed
chemicals to convenience stores in
Tennessee, albeit with close monitoring
by DEA through the submission of a
monthly log and consent to inspection
without an administrative inspection
warrant, has been mooted by
Tennessee’s recent enactment of
legislation requiring that all pill and
tablet pseudoephedrine products,
including those marketed under
traditional brand names, be sold only
through registered pharmacies. As this
state statute, discussed more fully under
factor two, effectively bars distribution
of those products throughout
Tennessee’s gray market, it is also
relevant under factor five and weighs
heavily against Respondent’s continued
registration. See, e.g., Elk International,
supra, 70 FR at 24,618.
Finally, as recommended by Judge
Randall, due to the apparent lack of
safety associated with the use of
phenylpropanolamine, factor five is also
relevant to Respondent’s initial proposal
to distribute that product. DEA has
previously determined that such a
request constitute a ground under factor
five for denial of an application for
registration. See J & S Distributors,
supra, 69 FR 62,089; Gazaly Trading
supra, 69 FR 22,561; William E. ‘‘Bill’’
Smith d/b/a B & B Wholesale, supra, 69
FR 22,559; Shani Distributors, supra, 68
FR 62,324. However, it is noted that
after the hearing and the Government’s
filing of its Exceptions to the Opinion
and Recommended Ruling,
Respondent’s Reply indicated that it did
not intend to carry products containing
phenylpropanolamine.
Based on the foregoing, the Deputy
Administrator concludes that
continuing Respondent’s registration
and granting its pending application for
renewal would be inconsistent with the
public interest.
Accordingly, the Deputy
Administrator of the Drug Enforcement
Administration, pursuant to the
authority vested in her by 21 U.S.C. 823
and 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104, hereby
orders that DEA Certificate of
Registration, 003278JIY, issued to Joy’s
Ideas, be, and it hereby is, revoked.
Further, the pending application for
renewal of said Certificate of
Registration submitted by Joy’s Ideas
should be, and hereby is, denied.
This order is effective July 7, 2005.
PO 00000
Frm 00145
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
33199
Dated: May 25, 2005.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05–11249 Filed 6–6–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–M
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 04–62]
Kennard Kobrin, M.D., Revocation of
Registration
On June 28, 2004, the Deputy
Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA), issued an Order
to Show Cause to Kennard Kobrin, M.D.,
(Respondent) of Fall River,
Massachusetts, notifying him of an
opportunity to show cause as to why
DEA should not revoke his DEA
Certificate of Registration AK8615013 as
a practitioner pursuant to 21 U.S.C.
824(a)(2), (3) and (4), and deny any
pending applications for renewal or
modification of that registration
pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f). As a basis
for revocation, the Order to Show Cause
alleged that Respondent had been
convicted of three state felony counts,
which involved illegal prescribing of a
controlled substance and Medicaid
fraud. As a part of his sentence, the
court ordered Respondent to cease
prescribing any medications for two
years, effective August 28, 2003.
Therefore, the Government alleged that
Respondent was no longer authorized to
handle controlled substances in
Massachusetts, his state of practice and
DEA registration.
Respondent, through counsel, timely
requested a hearing in this matter and
Presiding Administrative Law Judge
Mary Ellen Bittner (Judge Bittner) issued
an Order for Prehearing Statements.
After various motions had been filed
and addressed by Judge Bittner, on
November 22, 2004, the Government
filed its Request for Stay of Proceedings
and Motion for Summary Disposition
(Motion). In that Motion it was asserted
that the Massachusetts Board of
Registration in Medicine (Medical
Board) had revoked Respondent’s
license to practice medicine in that
state, effective December 17, 2004, and
that as a result, he was no longer
authorized to handle controlled
substances in the state where he is
registered with DEA. Attached to the
Government’s Motion was a copy of the
Medical Board’s Final Decision & Order,
dated November 17, 2004, revoking
Respondent’s Massachusetts medical
license as of December 17, 2004.
E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM
07JNN1
33200
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 7, 2005 / Notices
On November 29, 2004, Judge Bittner
issued an order affording Respondent an
opportunity to respond to the
Government’s Motion. On December 13
and 14, 2004, Respondent filed his
response, objecting to a summary
disposition of the proceeding and
requesting an indefinite stay. In it, he
argued that his state criminal
convictions and the Medical Board’s
revocation order were then-pending
appear and they should not be used as
a basis for adverse action on his DEA
registration. However, Respondent did
not deny that as of December 17, 2004,
he was no longer licensed to practice
medicine in Massachusetts.
On December 27, 2004, Judge Bittner
issued her Opinion and Recommended
Decision of the Administrative Law
Judge (Opinion and Recommended
Decision). In it, she granted the
Government’s Motion, finding
Respondent lacked authorization to
handle controlled substances in his state
of DEA registration and she
recommended that his registration be
revoked.
No exceptions were filed by either
party to the Opinion and Recommended
Decision and on February 2, 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
Respondent currently holds DEA
Certificate of Registration AK8615013 as
a practitioner and that on November 17,
2004, the Massachusetts Medical Board
revoked his license to practice medicine
in that state, effective as of December
17, 2004. That action was predicated on
Respondent’s criminal convictions
which under Massachusetts law, either
undermined the public’s confidence in
the integrity of the medical profession
or showed Respondent’s lack of moral
character.
The Deputy Administrator therefore
finds Respondent is not currently
licensed to practice medicine in
Massachusetts 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
VerDate jul<14>2003
20:54 Jun 06, 2005
Jkt 205001
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 (1998).
Here, it is clear Respondent is not
currently licensed to handle controlled
substances in Massachusetts, the
jurisdiction in which he holds 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 DEA Certificate of
Registration AK8615013, issued to
Kennard Kobrin, M.D., be, and it hereby
is, revoked. The Deputy Administrator
further orders that any pending
applications for renewal or modification
of such registration be, and they hereby
are, denied. This order is effective July
7, 2005.
Dated: May 25, 2005
Michele M. Leonhart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05–11246 Filed 6–6–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–M
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Scott H. Nearing, D.D.S., Grant of
Restricted Registration
On January 27, 2003, the Deputy
Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) issued an Order
to Show Cause to Scott H. Nearing,
D.D.S. (Dr. Nearing/Respondent) of
Wichita, Kansas. Dr. Nearing was
notified of an opportunity to show cause
as to why DEA should not deny this
application for a DEA Certificate of
Registration as a practitioner on the
grounds that his registration would be
inconsistent with the public interest, as
that term is used in 21 U.S.C. 823(f).
The Order to Show Cause alleged in
sum, that between April 1989 and May
1993 Dr. Nearing wrote and presented
more than 100 fictitious prescriptions to
local pharmacies for controlled
substances and ordered narcotic and
benzodiazepine controlled substances
from a wholesale drug company, all for
his personal use and not for legitimate
medical purposes. As a result of these
actions, he surrendered his DEA
Certificate of Registration on June 23,
1993, and on July 11, 1994, pled guilty
to one count of violating 21 U.S.C.
PO 00000
Frm 00146
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
843(a)(3) and was sentenced to four
months home confinement and placed
on probation for four years. It was
further alleged that between 1994 and
2000, the Kansas State Dental Board
(Dental Board) took several disciplinary
actions against Respondent, ranging
from license suspensions in 1994 and
1998 to discipline imposed in 2000 for
practicing without a license.
Respondent, acting pro se, requested
a hearing and the matter was docketed
before Administrative Law Judge Mary
Ellen Bittner. Following pre-hearing
procedures, a hearing was held in
Topeka, Kansas, on July 15, 2004. At the
hearing, both parties called witnesses to
testify and introduced documentary
evidence. Subsequently, both parties
filed Proposed Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, and Argument.
On January 3, 2005, Judge Bittner
issued her Opinion and Recommended
Ruling, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of
Law, and Decision of the Administrative
Law Judge (Opinion and Recommended
Ruling), recommending that
Respondent’s application for
registration as a practitioner be granted,
with the following restrictions: (1)
Respondent shall not write any
prescriptions for himself, and shall not
obtain or possess for his use any
controlled substance except upon the
written prescription of another licensed
medical professional, and (2) for at least
two years from the date of the entry of
a final order in this proceeding,
Respondent shall continue to attend
Caduceus meetings on a monthly basis.
No Exceptions to the Opinion and
Recommended Ruling were filed and on
February 2, 2005, 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 her final order based upon
findings of fact and conclusions of law
hereinafter set forth. The Deputy
Administrator adopts in full, the
recommended ruling, findings of fact
and conclusions of law of the
Administrative Law Judge and agrees
Respondent’s application should be
approved, with restrictions.
The record before the Deputy
Administrator shows Dr. Nearing
graduated from the University of
Missouri, Kansas City Dental School in
1983. In March 1984, he purchased a
small dental practice from the widow of
another dentist located in Overland
Park, Kansas and nine years later, DEA
began investigating Respondent after
local pharmacies began questioning
prescriptions he had written.
E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM
07JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 7, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33199-33200]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-11246]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 04-62]
Kennard Kobrin, M.D., Revocation of Registration
On June 28, 2004, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an
Order to Show Cause to Kennard Kobrin, M.D., (Respondent) of Fall
River, Massachusetts, notifying him of an opportunity to show cause as
to why DEA should not revoke his DEA Certificate of Registration
AK8615013 as a practitioner pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(2), (3) and
(4), and deny any pending applications for renewal or modification of
that registration pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f). As a basis for
revocation, the Order to Show Cause alleged that Respondent had been
convicted of three state felony counts, which involved illegal
prescribing of a controlled substance and Medicaid fraud. As a part of
his sentence, the court ordered Respondent to cease prescribing any
medications for two years, effective August 28, 2003. Therefore, the
Government alleged that Respondent was no longer authorized to handle
controlled substances in Massachusetts, his state of practice and DEA
registration.
Respondent, through counsel, timely requested a hearing in this
matter and Presiding Administrative Law Judge Mary Ellen Bittner (Judge
Bittner) issued an Order for Prehearing Statements. After various
motions had been filed and addressed by Judge Bittner, on November 22,
2004, the Government filed its Request for Stay of Proceedings and
Motion for Summary Disposition (Motion). In that Motion it was asserted
that the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine (Medical
Board) had revoked Respondent's license to practice medicine in that
state, effective December 17, 2004, and that as a result, he was no
longer authorized to handle controlled substances in the state where he
is registered with DEA. Attached to the Government's Motion was a copy
of the Medical Board's Final Decision & Order, dated November 17, 2004,
revoking Respondent's Massachusetts medical license as of December 17,
2004.
[[Page 33200]]
On November 29, 2004, Judge Bittner issued an order affording
Respondent an opportunity to respond to the Government's Motion. On
December 13 and 14, 2004, Respondent filed his response, objecting to a
summary disposition of the proceeding and requesting an indefinite
stay. In it, he argued that his state criminal convictions and the
Medical Board's revocation order were then-pending appear and they
should not be used as a basis for adverse action on his DEA
registration. However, Respondent did not deny that as of December 17,
2004, he was no longer licensed to practice medicine in Massachusetts.
On December 27, 2004, Judge Bittner issued her Opinion and
Recommended Decision of the Administrative Law Judge (Opinion and
Recommended Decision). In it, she granted the Government's Motion,
finding Respondent lacked authorization to handle controlled substances
in his state of DEA registration and she recommended that his
registration be revoked.
No exceptions were filed by either party to the Opinion and
Recommended Decision and on February 2, 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 Respondent currently holds DEA
Certificate of Registration AK8615013 as a practitioner and that on
November 17, 2004, the Massachusetts Medical Board revoked his license
to practice medicine in that state, effective as of December 17, 2004.
That action was predicated on Respondent's criminal convictions which
under Massachusetts law, either undermined the public's confidence in
the integrity of the medical profession or showed Respondent's lack of
moral character.
The Deputy Administrator therefore finds Respondent is not
currently licensed to practice medicine in Massachusetts 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 (1998).
Here, it is clear Respondent is not currently licensed to handle
controlled substances in Massachusetts, the jurisdiction in which he
holds 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 DEA
Certificate of Registration AK8615013, issued to Kennard Kobrin, M.D.,
be, and it hereby is, revoked. The Deputy Administrator further orders
that any pending applications for renewal or modification of such
registration be, and they hereby are, denied. This order is effective
July 7, 2005.
Dated: May 25, 2005
Michele M. Leonhart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05-11246 Filed 6-6-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
