Piyush V. Patel, M.D.; Revocation of Registration, 18274-18275 [E7-6761]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
18274
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 11, 2007 / Notices
Resp. Opp., and a ‘‘Rescheduled Second
Pre-Hearing Conference Order.’’ Ex. 3 to
Resp. Opp.
The ALJ granted the Government’s
motion. The ALJ found that there was
no material factual dispute regarding
whether Respondent currently has
authority under Massachusetts law to
handle controlled substances. ALJ Dec.
at 3. The ALJ specifically rejected
Respondent’s contention that its state
controlled substance registration had
not been suspended, but rather, was
being held in escrow by the
Massachusetts Board pending a final
decision. Id. Relatedly, the ALJ also
dismissed Respondent’s argument that
the State never implemented the
summary suspension order, reasoning
that ‘‘whether the license is suspended
pending a hearing on the merits, or is
held in escrow,’’ is irrelevant, because
‘‘[i]n either event, Respondent is
without authority to handle controlled
substances in Massachusetts.’’ Id. The
ALJ thus held that Respondent is not
entitled to maintain its DEA registration
and recommended that I revoke
Respondent’s registration. The ALJ then
forwarded the record to me for final
agency action.
Having considered the record as a
whole, I adopt the ALJ’s holding that
Respondent is currently without
authority to handle controlled
substances in Massachusetts and is
therefore not entitled to maintain its
DEA registration. Here, the State’s
‘‘Final Order of Summary Suspension,’’
which is signed by the Board’s
President, clearly ordered the
suspension, effective October 23, 2005,
of Respondent’s state controlled
substance registration ‘‘pending a final
decision on the merits.’’
Respondent’s assertion that the State
‘‘has never executed or implemented the
Final Order of Summary Suspension’’
does not raise a genuine issue of fact
that requires a hearing to resolve.
Respondent’s evidence—i.e., a letter to
the Board’s lawyer discussing an
agreement to surrender its state
registration to be held in escrow
pending a final decision—does not
create a factual dispute as to whether
Respondent’s state registration has been
suspended. As a leading authority
explains, ‘‘evidence in opposition to the
motion that is clearly without any force
is insufficient to raise a genuine issue.’’
Charles Allen Wright, et al., Federal
Practice and Procedure section 2727
(3d. ed. 2006).1 In short, this letter
1 Respondent’s other evidence likewise does not
create a factual dispute as to whether its state
controlled substance registration has been
suspended.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:09 Apr 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
contains nothing that refutes the
Government’s assertion that
Respondent’s state controlled substance
registration has been suspended.
Under the Controlled Substances Act
(CSA), it is irrelevant that Respondent’s
state registration is being held in escrow
pending state proceedings. Under the
Act, a practitioner must be currently
authorized to handle controlled
substances in ‘‘the jurisdiction in which
[it] practices’’ in order to maintain its
DEA registration. See 21 U.S.C. 802(21)
(‘‘[t]he term ‘practitioner’ means a * * *
pharmacy * * * licensed, registered, or
otherwise permitted, by * * * the
jurisdiction in which [it] practices
* * * to * * * dispense * * * a
controlled substance in the course of
professional practice’’). See also id.
section 823(f) (‘‘The Attorney General
shall register practitioners * * * if the
applicant is authorized to dispense
* * * controlled substances under the
laws of the State in which [it]
practices.’’).
Furthermore, in section 304, Congress
expressly authorized the revocation of a
DEA registration issued to a registrant
whose ‘‘State license or registration [has
been] suspended * * * by competent
State authority and is no longer
authorized by State law to engage in the
* * * dispensing of controlled
substances.’’ Id. section 824(a)(3). By
definition, a suspension is of a finite
duration. See Merriam-Webster’s
Collegiate Dictionary 1187 (10th ed.
1998) (defining ‘‘suspend’’ as ‘‘to debar
temporarily from a privilege
* * * or function’’). Under the CSA, it
does not matter whether the suspension
is for a fixed term or for a duration
which has yet to be determined because
it is continuing pending the outcome of
a state proceeding. Rather, what
matters—as DEA has repeatedly held—
is whether Respondent is without
authority under Massachusetts law to
dispense a controlled substance. See
Oakland Medical Pharmacy, 71 FR
50100, 50,102 (2006) (‘‘a registrant may
not hold a DEA registration if it is
without appropriate authority under the
laws of the state in which it does
business’’); Accord Rx Network of South
Florida, LLC, 69 FR 62,093 (2004);
Wingfield Drugs, Inc., 52 FR 27,070
(1987).
Because the State suspended its
controlled substances registration,
Respondent clearly lacks authority
under Massachusetts law to handle
controlled substances. Therefore, it is
not entitled to maintain its DEA
registration.
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Order
Pursuant to the authority vested in me
by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) & 824(a), as well as
28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104, I hereby
order that DEA Certificate of
Registration, AB2802468, issued to
Bourne Pharmacy, Inc., be and it hereby
is, revoked. I further order that any
pending applications for renewal or
modification of such registration be, and
they hereby are, denied. This order is
effective May 11, 2007.
Dated: March 30, 2007.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. E7–6760 Filed 4–10–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 06–58]
Piyush V. Patel, M.D.; Revocation of
Registration
On May 9, 2006, the Deputy Assistant
Administrator, Office of Diversion
Control, Drug Enforcement
Administration, issued an Order to
Show Cause to Piyush V. Patel, M.D.
(Respondent) of Midland, Texas. The
Show Cause Order proposed the
revocation of Respondent’s DEA
Certificate of Registration, AP1614800,
as a practitioner, on the ground that
Respondent’s license to practice
medicine in the State of Texas had been
revoked, and that Respondent was
therefore ‘‘without authority to handle
controlled substances in Texas, the State
in which [he] practices.’’ Show Cause
Order at 1. The Show Cause Order also
informed Respondent of his right to
request a hearing.
Respondent, acting pro se, filed a
timely request for a hearing; the matter
was assigned to Administrative Law
Judge (ALJ) Mary Ellen Bittner. In that
request, Respondent stated that he was
currently incarcerated and requested
that the hearing be delayed until after
his release on April 7, 2007. Respondent
also indicated that he was not currently
licensed by the Texas State Board of
Medical Examiners.
On June 21, 2006, the Government
moved for summary disposition on the
ground that Respondent was ‘‘not
currently authorized to engage in the
active practice of medicine or to handle
controlled substances in Texas.’’ Mot.
for Summary Disp. at 2. In support of its
motion, the Government attached an
‘‘Agreed Order’’ (dated August 26, 2005)
which Respondent had entered into
with the Texas State Board of Medical
E:\FR\FM\11APN1.SGM
11APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 69 / Wednesday, April 11, 2007 / Notices
cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
Examiners. Under the order,
Respondent’s Texas medical license was
revoked.
Thereafter, on July 13, 2006, the ALJ
denied Respondent’s request to stay the
hearing until after his release from
prison. ALJ Dec. at 2. The ALJ further
ordered that Respondent file a response
to the Government’s motion by August
3, 2006. Respondent, however, failed to
do so.
Thereafter, the ALJ granted the
Government’s motion. The ALJ noted
that Respondent ‘‘acknowledges that his
license to practice medicine in Texas is
revoked, and will remain revoked at
least until his release from prison on
April 7, 2007.’’ Id. As this material fact
was undisputed, the ALJ held that
because ‘‘Respondent lacks state
authority, he is not entitled to a DEA
registration in Texas,’’ and therefore
recommended that Respondent’s
registration be revoked. Id. at 2–3. The
ALJ then forwarded the record to me for
final agency action.
Having considered the record as a
whole, I adopt the ALJ’s
recommendation that Respondent’s
registration be revoked. But in doing so,
I decline to adopt the ALJ’s reasoning to
the extent it relies solely on the Texas
State Board of Medical Examiner’s
revocation of Respondent’s medical
license. Under Texas law, a practitioner
must obtain a separate state registration
to dispense a controlled substance.
Texas Health & Safety Code § 481.061.
The record, however, contains no
evidence regarding the status of
Respondent’s state registration.
Therefore, in accordance with 5
U.S.C. 556(e), I take official notice of the
fact that according to the Texas
Department of Public Safety’s
Controlled Substances Registration
verification search page, Respondent is
not currently registered to dispense
controlled substances in the State.1
Under the Controlled Substances Act
(CSA), a practitioner must be currently
authorized to handle controlled
substances in ‘‘the jurisdiction in which
he practices’’ in order to maintain a
DEA registration. See 21 U.S.C. 802(21)
(‘‘[t]he term ‘practitioner’ means a
physician * * * licensed, registered, or
otherwise permitted, by * * * the
jurisdiction in which he practices * * *
to distribute, dispense, [or] administer
1 Under the Administrative Procedure Act,
‘‘[a]gencies may take official notice of facts at any
stage in a proceeding—even in the final decision.’’
Attorney General’s Manual on the Administrative
Procedure Act 80 (1946) ( Wm. W. Gaunt & Sons,
Inc., reprint 1979). In accordance with the Act,
Respondent may ‘‘show to the contrary’’ by filing
a request for reconsideration which includes
supporting documentation within fifteen days of
receipt of this order.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:09 Apr 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
* * * a controlled substance in the
course of professional practice’’). See
also id. section 823(f) (‘‘The Attorney
General shall register practitioners
* * * if the applicant is authorized to
dispense * * * controlled substances
under the laws of the State in which he
practices.’’). DEA has held repeatedly
that the CSA requires the revocation of
a registration issued to a practitioner
who no longer possesses authority
under state law to handle controlled
substances. See Sheran Arden Yeates,
71 FR 39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick A.
Ricci, 58 FR 51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby
Watts, 53 FR 11919, 11920 (1988). See
also 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) (authorizing the
revocation of a registration ‘‘upon a
finding that the registrant * * * has had
his State license or registration
suspended [or] revoked * * * and is no
longer authorized by State law to engage
in the * * * distribution [or] dispensing
of controlled substances’’). Therefore,
Respondent’s DEA registration must be
revoked.2
Order
Accordingly, pursuant to the
authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C.
823(f) & 824(a), as well as 28 CFR
0.100(b) & 0.104, I hereby order that
DEA Certificate of Registration,
AP1614800, issued to Piyush V. Patel,
M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. I
further order that any pending
applications for renewal or modification
of such registration be, and they hereby
are, denied. This order is effective May
11, 2007.
Dated: March 30, 2007.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. E7–6761 Filed 4–10–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 05–8]
Rick’s Picks, L.L.C.; Revocation of
Registration
On October 7, 2004, the Deputy
Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement
Administration, issued an Order to
Show Cause to Rick’s Picks, L.L.C.
(Respondent), of Moore, Oklahoma. The
Show Cause Order proposed the
revocation of Respondent’s DEA
Certificate of Registration, 003949RPY,
as a distributor of list I chemicals, on
the ground that its continued
2 The expiration date of Respondent’s DEA
registration is March 31, 2008.
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
18275
registration was inconsistent with the
public interest. Show Cause Order at 1
(citing 21 U.S.C. 823(h)).
The Show Cause Order incorporated
the allegations of a show cause order
which was initiated by the Oklahoma
State Bureau of Narcotics and
Dangerous Drugs Control; the latter
order proposed the denial of
Respondent’s application for a state
registration to distribute
pseudoephedrine products that are
Schedule V drugs under State law, as
well as the revocation of Respondent’s
state registration to distribute
pseudoephedrine products which are
not scheduled under state law. Id. at 2.
Specifically, the state show cause order
alleged that Respondent and its owner,
Rick D. Fowler, ‘‘have a history of
selling very large amounts of
pseudoephedrine under suspicious and
questionable circumstances, and with
great negligence and reckless disregard
for whether this product would be used
in the clandestine manufacture of
methamphetamine,’’ and that
Respondent, and its owner, had engaged
in this activity notwithstanding
‘‘numerous warnings from . . . DEA
officials that Respondent’s sales were
fueling illicit methamphetamine
laboratories.’’ Id.
Relatedly, the State show cause order
alleged that from January 2002 through
April 2004, Respondent sold more than
$ 2.2 million of Max Brand (for a total
of nearly 10.5 million tablets), a product
in which pseudoephedrine is the single
active ingredient and which is the
‘‘preferred choice [of]
methamphetamine cooks.’’ Id. at 4–5.
The state show cause order also alleged
that Respondent had brokered the sale
of approximately 400,000
pseudoephedrine tablets for D & E
Pharmaceutical. Id. at 5. The DEA Show
Cause Order then repeated ten different
allegations made in the state show cause
order which asserted specific instances
in which Respondent had sold
extraordinary quantities of
pseudoephedrine to convenience stores,
gas stations and other non-traditional
retailers of this product, and that
Respondent had failed to report any of
these transactions to DEA. Id. at 6–8.
The State show cause order further
alleged that pseudoephedrine
distributed by Respondent had been
found at twenty-two methamphetamine
dumpsites. Id. at 8. Finally, the DEA
Show Cause Order alleged that in
November 2003, DEA had conducted an
inspection of Respondent during which
numerous recordkeeping violations
were observed. Id. at 9.
Respondent requested a hearing on
the allegations. The matter was assigned
E:\FR\FM\11APN1.SGM
11APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 69 (Wednesday, April 11, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18274-18275]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-6761]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 06-58]
Piyush V. Patel, M.D.; Revocation of Registration
On May 9, 2006, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to
Show Cause to Piyush V. Patel, M.D. (Respondent) of Midland, Texas. The
Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Respondent's DEA
Certificate of Registration, AP1614800, as a practitioner, on the
ground that Respondent's license to practice medicine in the State of
Texas had been revoked, and that Respondent was therefore ``without
authority to handle controlled substances in Texas, the State in which
[he] practices.'' Show Cause Order at 1. The Show Cause Order also
informed Respondent of his right to request a hearing.
Respondent, acting pro se, filed a timely request for a hearing;
the matter was assigned to Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Mary Ellen
Bittner. In that request, Respondent stated that he was currently
incarcerated and requested that the hearing be delayed until after his
release on April 7, 2007. Respondent also indicated that he was not
currently licensed by the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners.
On June 21, 2006, the Government moved for summary disposition on
the ground that Respondent was ``not currently authorized to engage in
the active practice of medicine or to handle controlled substances in
Texas.'' Mot. for Summary Disp. at 2. In support of its motion, the
Government attached an ``Agreed Order'' (dated August 26, 2005) which
Respondent had entered into with the Texas State Board of Medical
[[Page 18275]]
Examiners. Under the order, Respondent's Texas medical license was
revoked.
Thereafter, on July 13, 2006, the ALJ denied Respondent's request
to stay the hearing until after his release from prison. ALJ Dec. at 2.
The ALJ further ordered that Respondent file a response to the
Government's motion by August 3, 2006. Respondent, however, failed to
do so.
Thereafter, the ALJ granted the Government's motion. The ALJ noted
that Respondent ``acknowledges that his license to practice medicine in
Texas is revoked, and will remain revoked at least until his release
from prison on April 7, 2007.'' Id. As this material fact was
undisputed, the ALJ held that because ``Respondent lacks state
authority, he is not entitled to a DEA registration in Texas,'' and
therefore recommended that Respondent's registration be revoked. Id. at
2-3. The ALJ then forwarded the record to me for final agency action.
Having considered the record as a whole, I adopt the ALJ's
recommendation that Respondent's registration be revoked. But in doing
so, I decline to adopt the ALJ's reasoning to the extent it relies
solely on the Texas State Board of Medical Examiner's revocation of
Respondent's medical license. Under Texas law, a practitioner must
obtain a separate state registration to dispense a controlled
substance. Texas Health & Safety Code Sec. 481.061. The record,
however, contains no evidence regarding the status of Respondent's
state registration.
Therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 556(e), I take official
notice of the fact that according to the Texas Department of Public
Safety's Controlled Substances Registration verification search page,
Respondent is not currently registered to dispense controlled
substances in the State.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Under the Administrative Procedure Act, ``[a]gencies may
take official notice of facts at any stage in a proceeding--even in
the final decision.'' Attorney General's Manual on the
Administrative Procedure Act 80 (1946) ( Wm. W. Gaunt & Sons, Inc.,
reprint 1979). In accordance with the Act, Respondent may ``show to
the contrary'' by filing a request for reconsideration which
includes supporting documentation within fifteen days of receipt of
this order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), a practitioner must be
currently authorized to handle controlled substances in ``the
jurisdiction in which he practices'' in order to maintain a DEA
registration. See 21 U.S.C. 802(21) (``[t]he term `practitioner' means
a physician * * * licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, by * *
* the jurisdiction in which he practices * * * to distribute, dispense,
[or] administer * * * a controlled substance in the course of
professional practice''). See also id. section 823(f) (``The Attorney
General shall register practitioners * * * if the applicant is
authorized to dispense * * * controlled substances under the laws of
the State in which he practices.''). DEA has held repeatedly that the
CSA requires the revocation of a registration issued to a practitioner
who no longer possesses authority under state law to handle controlled
substances. See Sheran Arden Yeates, 71 FR 39130, 39131 (2006);
Dominick A. Ricci, 58 FR 51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby Watts, 53 FR 11919,
11920 (1988). See also 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) (authorizing the revocation
of a registration ``upon a finding that the registrant * * * has had
his State license or registration suspended [or] revoked * * * and is
no longer authorized by State law to engage in the * * * distribution
[or] dispensing of controlled substances''). Therefore, Respondent's
DEA registration must be revoked.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The expiration date of Respondent's DEA registration is
March 31, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C.
823(f) & 824(a), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b) & 0.104, I hereby order
that DEA Certificate of Registration, AP1614800, issued to Piyush V.
Patel, M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. I further order that any
pending applications for renewal or modification of such registration
be, and they hereby are, denied. This order is effective May 11, 2007.
Dated: March 30, 2007.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. E7-6761 Filed 4-10-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
