Craig H. Bammer, D.O.; Denial of Application, 34327-34329 [E8-13609]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 17, 2008 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—Cable Television Laboratories, Inc. Notice is hereby given that, on May 7, 2008, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), Cable Television Laboratories, Inc. (‘‘CableLabs’’), filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act’s provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, JetBroadband, Brook, NY, has been added as a party to this venture. No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and CableLabs intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership. On August 8, 1988, CableLabs filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on September 7, 1988 (53 FR 34593). The last notification was filed with the Department on January 4, 2007. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on February 12, 2007 (72 FR 6577). Patricia A. Brink, Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division. [FR Doc. E8–13213 Filed 6–16–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–11–M DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—ASTM InternationalStandards Notice is hereby given that, on May 16, 2008, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), ASTM International (‘‘ASTM’’) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:10 Jun 16, 2008 Jkt 214001 Commission disclosing additions or changes to its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act’s provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, ASTM has provided an updated list of current, ongoing ASTM standards activities originating between February 2008 and May 2008 designated as Work Items. A complete listing of ASTM Work Items, along with a brief description of each, is available at https://www.astm.org. On September 15, 2004, ASTM filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on November 10, 2004 (69 FR 65226). The last notification was filed with the Department on February 29, 2008. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on April 7, 2008 (73 FR 18812). Patricia A. Brink, Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division. [FR Doc. E8–13211 Filed 6–16–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–11–M DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Notice is hereby given that, on May 9, 2008, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (‘‘IEEE’’) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing additions or changes to its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act’s provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, 20 new standards have been initiated and 11 existing standards are being revised. More detail regarding these changes can be found at https:// standards.ieee.org/standardswire/sba/ 27–03–08.html. On September 17, 2004, IEEE filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 34327 Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on November 3, 2004 (69 FR 64105). The last notification was filed with the Department on January 11, 2008. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on February 25, 2008 (73 FR 10065). Patricia A. Brink, Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division. [FR Doc. E8–13214 Filed 6–16–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–11–M DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Craig H. Bammer, D.O.; Denial of Application On October 1, 2007, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to Show Cause to Craig H. Bammer, D.O. (Respondent), of South Gulfport, Florida. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Respondent’s Certificate of Registration, BB1336456, as a practitioner, and the denial of any pending applications to renew or modify the registration, on three grounds. Show Cause Order at 1– 2. More specifically, the Show Cause Order alleged that on both February 28 and April 27, 2007, the Pinellas County, Florida Sheriff’s Office had arrested Respondent and charged him with prescribing controlled substances without a legitimate medical purpose, and that his conduct constituted acts inconsistent with the public interest. Id. at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4)). Next, the Show Cause Order alleged that on June 21, 2007, the Florida Department of Health revoked Respondent’s state medical license and that Respondent was therefore without authority to handle controlled substances in the State in which he held his DEA registration. Id. (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)). Finally, the Show Cause Order alleged that in July 2003, Respondent had materially falsified his renewal application for a DEA registration by failing to disclose that in 1999, he had surrendered his DEA registration and Ohio medical license based on allegations that he was ‘‘impaired by excessive or habitual use of drugs and alcohol.’’ Id. at 1–2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(1)). On October 15, 2007, the Show Cause Order, which also informed Respondent of his right to a hearing, was served on him at the Pinellas County Jail, where E:\FR\FM\17JNN1.SGM 17JNN1 34328 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 17, 2008 / Notices he was then residing.1 Since that time, neither Respondent, nor any one purporting to represent him, has requested a hearing. Because more than thirty days have passed since the service of the Show Cause Order and no request for a hearing has been received, I find that Respondent has waived his right to a hearing on the allegations. 21 CFR 1301.43(d). Accordingly, I enter this Final Order without a hearing based on relevant material contained in the investigative file and make the following findings. Id. § 1301.43(e). Findings jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES Respondent held DEA Certificate of Registration, BB1336456, which expired on July 31, 2006. Respondent did not file a renewal application until August 8, 2006. Because Respondent’s renewal application was untimely, I find that Respondent does not have a current registration. See 5 U.S.C. 558(c). Respondent does, however, have an application which remains pending before the Agency. On June 9, 1999, Respondent voluntarily surrendered his Ohio medical license to avoid further formal proceedings based on his failure to comply with a consent agreement with the Ohio Medical Board under which he was required to surrender his DEA registration and could not apply for a new registration absent the state board’s approval. According to the records of the Ohio board, Respondent had admitted that he ‘‘suffered impairment due to excessive or habitual use of drugs and alcohol.’’ See Ohio Medical Board Formal Actions Against Craig Howard Bammer, at 2. Respondent eventually did surrender his DEA registration. On July 24, 2003, Respondent submitted an application to renew his DEA registration.2 While on this application Respondent acknowledged that he had been subjected to disciplinary proceedings with respect to both his Ohio and Florida medical licenses, Respondent answered ‘‘no’’ to the question of whether he had ‘‘ever surrendered’’ his DEA registration. Moreover, according to the Agency’s registration records, on his August 2006 application, Respondent again acknowledged the prior actions against his state licenses. The registration record does not, however, establish how 1 A courtesy copy of the Show Cause Order was also sent to Respondent’s counsel. 2 By this date, Respondent had already regained a DEA registration, as a renewal application stated that ‘‘your crrent registration expires on 07–31– 2003.’’ Renewal Application for Registration (Dtd. July 7, 2003). VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:10 Jun 16, 2008 Jkt 214001 Respondent answered the liability question related to his DEA registration. As for the other allegations, the investigative file establishes that in January 2007, an undercover officer obtained a prescription for Roxicodone, a schedule II controlled substance from Respondent without the latter having performed a physical examination. Moreover, the undercover officer also obtained a prescription for a third person who was not present. The investigative file does not, however, indicate what drug the prescription was for. The investigative file also indicates that in February 2007, the undercover officer obtained additional prescriptions for Roxicodone in exchange for the officer’s agreeing to pay Respondent’s electric bill. Shortly thereafter, Respondent was arrested and charged with several counts of trafficking in illegal drugs, a felony offense under Florida law. See Fla. Stat. Ann. 893.135. According to the online records of the Pinellas County Courts, Respondent awaits trial on these charges. Moreover, on May 25, 2007, the Florida Department of Health issued an emergency order suspending Respondent’s medical license. Thereafter, on June 21, 2007, the Florida Department of Health revoked Respondent’s medical license. Discussion Under section 304(a) of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), a registration ‘‘may be suspended or revoked by the Attorney General upon a finding that the registrant * * * has materially falsified any application filed pursuant to or required by this subchapter.’’ 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(1). The Attorney General may also suspend or revoke a registration ‘‘upon a finding that the registrant * * * has had his State license or registration suspended, revoked, or denied by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the * * * dispensing of controlled substances.’’ Id. § 824(a)(3). Under agency precedent, the various grounds for revocation or suspension of an existing registration which Congress enumerated in section 304(a), 21 U.S.C. 824(a), are also properly considered in deciding whether to grant or deny a registration under section 303. See The Lawsons, Inc., 72 FR 74334, 74338 (2007); Kuen H. Chen, 58 FR 65401, 65402 (1993). In this matter, the Order to Show Cause alleged three separate grounds for this proceeding. I conclude that it is unnecessary to address the allegations related to Respondent’s prescribing of controlled substances without a PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 legitimate medical purpose. Instead, I find that because Respondent materially falsified his 2003 application for a DEA registration and lacks authority under state law to prescribe a controlled substance, he is not entitled to hold a DEA registration. Accordingly, his application will be denied. The Material Falsification Allegation Respondent materially falsified his 2003 application for a DEA registration when he failed to disclose that he had previously surrendered his DEA registration. As this Agency has repeatedly held, ‘‘ ‘[t]he provision of truthful information on applications is absolutely essential to effectuating [the] statutory purpose’ of determining whether the granting of an application is consistent with the public interest.’’ The Lawsons, 72 FR at 74338 (quoting Peter H. Ahles, 71 FR 50097, 50098 (2006)). See also Hoxie v. DEA, 419 F.3d 477, 483 (6th Cir. 2005) (‘‘Candor * * * is considered by the DEA to be an important factor when assessing whether a * * * registration is consistent with the public interest.’’). A false statement is material if it ‘‘has a natural tendency to influence, or was capable of influencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to which it was addressed.’’ Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 770 (1988) (int. quotation and other citations omitted). Moreover, while the evidence must be ‘‘clear, unequivocal, and convincing,’’ the ‘‘ultimate finding of materiality turns on an interpretation of the substantive law.’’ Id. at 772 (int. quotations and other citation omitted). This Agency has previously held that ‘‘[a]n applicant’s answers to the various liability questions are material because [it] ‘relies upon such answers to determine whether an investigation is needed prior to granting the application.’ ’’The Lawsons, 72 FR at 74338 (quoting Martha Hernandez, 62 FR 61145, 61146 (1997)). Notably, in determining whether the granting of an application is in the public interest, the Agency is required to consider ‘‘[t]he applicant’s experience in dispensing * * * controlled substances,’’ his ‘‘[c]ompliance with applicable State, Federal or local laws relating to controlled substances,’’ and ‘‘other conduct which may threaten public health and safety.’’ 21 U.S.C. 823(f). And in making determinations with respect to these factors, DEA has repeatedly considered an applicant’s or an existing registrant’s history of abusing controlled substances. See, e.g., Patrick K. Riggs, 72 FR 71959 (2007); Alan H. Olefsky, 72 FR 42127 (2007); Alan H. Olefsky, 57 FR 928 (1992). E:\FR\FM\17JNN1.SGM 17JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 117 / Tuesday, June 17, 2008 / Notices I thus conclude that Respondent’s failure to disclose the earlier surrender of his DEA registration was a material misrepresentation because it ‘‘ha[d] a natural tendency to influence the * * * decision’’ of the Agency as to whether to grant his application for a new registration.3 Under DEA precedent, this act ‘‘provides an independent and adequate ground for denying’’ Respondent’s application. The Lawsons, 72 FR at 74338; Cf. Bobby Watts, 58 FR 46997 (1993). The Lack of State Authority Allegation jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES As found above, on May 25, 2007, the Florida Department of Health issued an order which imposed an emergency suspension of Respondent’s state medical license. Shortly thereafter, on June 21, 2007, the Florida Department of Health issued a further order which revoked Respondent’s state medical license. 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. § 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.’’). As these provisions make plain, possessing authority to dispense a controlled substance under the laws of the State in which a physician practices medicine is an essential condition for holding a DEA registration. Because Respondent’s Florida medical license has been revoked, he is without authority under state law to handle controlled substance and does not meet an essential prerequisite under the CSA for obtaining a new DEA registration. See Richard Carino, M.D., 72 FR 71955, 71956 (2007) (citing cases); 21 U.S.C. 823(f). Accordingly, his application will be denied for this reason as well. 3 While Respondent indicated on 2003 application that both his Florida and Ohio licenses had been subjected to discipline, he further stated that the basis of the discipline was his ‘‘abuse of a non-controlled substance (Stadol nasal spray).’’ Stadol nasal spray contains butorphanol tartrate, and is a schedule IV controlled substance. See 21 CFR 1308.14(f). Respondent’s statement was thus an additional misrepresentation. VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:16 Jun 16, 2008 Jkt 214001 Order Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b) & 0.104, I hereby order that the application of Craig H. Bammer, D.O., for the renewal of his registration be, and it hereby is, denied. This order is effective July 17, 2008. Dated: June 6, 2008. Michele M. Leonhart, Deputy Administrator. [FR Doc. E8–13609 Filed 6–16–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–09–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. 07–52] Benjamin Levine, M.D.; Dismissal of Proceeding On August 7, 2007, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to Show Cause to Benjamin Levine, M.D. (Respondent), of East Brunswick, New Jersey. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Respondent’s DEA Certificate of Registration, BL3612480, as a practitioner, and the denial of any pending applications to renew or modify his registration, on three separate grounds. Show Cause Order at 1. More specifically, the Show Cause Order alleged that: (1) Respondent had materially falsified his renewal application for his current registration; (2) Respondent lacked authority to handle controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practiced medicine and held his DEA registration; and (3) Respondent had committed acts inconsistent with the public interest. Id. at 1–3. Respondent requested a hearing on the allegations and the case was assigned to Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Gail A. Randall. Shortly thereafter, the Government moved for summary disposition on the ground that the New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners had suspended Respondent’s state medical license. Motion for Summary Judgment at 1–2. Respondent requested additional time to respond to the Government’s motion. In his motion, Respondent did not deny that his state license had been suspended. Instead, Respondent noted that he was appealing the State board’s order. Resp. Br. in Support of Motion for Additional Time at 3–4. Respondent also cited a litany of legal proceedings that he was litigating including a criminal case, a tort action, a motion for PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 34329 post-conviction relief of a 1996 conviction, a suit for libel and slander, another suit ‘‘related to the Medical Board and * * * malpractice insurance lawyers,’’ and a bankruptcy proceeding. Id. at 3–4. The ALJ, however, denied Respondent’s motion (as well as his Renewed Request for an extension of time). Applying agency precedent, she also rejected Respondent’s argument that the Agency should not revoke his registration because his state license was only temporarily suspended. ALJ Dec. at 6 (citing Alton E. Ingram, Jr., 69 FR 22562, 22563 (2004)). Because ‘‘Respondent lack[ed] authority to practice medicine and handle controlled substances in New Jersey,’’ the ALJ held that ‘‘DEA lack[ed] authority to continue * * * Respondent’s DEA registration.’’ ALJ Dec. at 7. The ALJ thus granted the Government’s motion for summary disposition 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 (including Respondent’s exceptions), I conclude that this case is now moot. It is undisputed that Respondent’s registration expired on March 31, 2008. See Order to Show Cause at 1; see also Respondent’s Counter-Statement of Material Facts at 1. Moreover, according to the registration records of this Agency, Respondent has not filed a renewal application.1 I therefore find that Respondent is not currently registered with this Agency. Under DEA precedent, ‘‘ ‘if a registrant has not submitted a timely renewal application prior to the expiration date, then the registration expires and there is nothing to revoke.’ ’’ David L. Wood, 72 FR 54936, 54937 (2007) (quoting Ronald J. Riegel, 63 FR 67132, 67133 (1998)). Moreover, while I have recognized a limited exception to this rule in cases which commence with the issuance of an immediate suspension order because of the collateral consequences which may attach with the issuance of such a suspension, see William R. Lockridge, 1 Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), an agency ‘‘may take official notice of facts at any stage in a proceeding—even in the final decision.’’ U.S. Dept. of Justice, Attorney General’s Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act 80 (1947) (Wm. W. Gaunt & Sons, Inc., Reprint 1979). In accordance with the APA and DEA’s regulations, Respondent is ‘‘entitled on timely request, to an opportunity to show to the contrary.’’ § 5 U.S.C. 556(e); see also 21 CFR 1316.59(e). Respondent can dispute these facts by filing a properly supported motion for reconsideration within fifteen days of service of this order, which shall begin on the date this order is mailed. E:\FR\FM\17JNN1.SGM 17JNN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 117 (Tuesday, June 17, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34327-34329]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-13609]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Craig H. Bammer, D.O.; Denial of Application

    On October 1, 2007, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to 
Show Cause to Craig H. Bammer, D.O. (Respondent), of South Gulfport, 
Florida. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Respondent's 
Certificate of Registration, BB1336456, as a practitioner, and the 
denial of any pending applications to renew or modify the registration, 
on three grounds. Show Cause Order at 1-2.
    More specifically, the Show Cause Order alleged that on both 
February 28 and April 27, 2007, the Pinellas County, Florida Sheriff's 
Office had arrested Respondent and charged him with prescribing 
controlled substances without a legitimate medical purpose, and that 
his conduct constituted acts inconsistent with the public interest. Id. 
at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4)). Next, the Show Cause Order alleged 
that on June 21, 2007, the Florida Department of Health revoked 
Respondent's state medical license and that Respondent was therefore 
without authority to handle controlled substances in the State in which 
he held his DEA registration. Id. (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)). 
Finally, the Show Cause Order alleged that in July 2003, Respondent had 
materially falsified his renewal application for a DEA registration by 
failing to disclose that in 1999, he had surrendered his DEA 
registration and Ohio medical license based on allegations that he was 
``impaired by excessive or habitual use of drugs and alcohol.'' Id. at 
1-2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(1)).
    On October 15, 2007, the Show Cause Order, which also informed 
Respondent of his right to a hearing, was served on him at the Pinellas 
County Jail, where

[[Page 34328]]

he was then residing.\1\ Since that time, neither Respondent, nor any 
one purporting to represent him, has requested a hearing. Because more 
than thirty days have passed since the service of the Show Cause Order 
and no request for a hearing has been received, I find that Respondent 
has waived his right to a hearing on the allegations. 21 CFR 
1301.43(d). Accordingly, I enter this Final Order without a hearing 
based on relevant material contained in the investigative file and make 
the following findings. Id. Sec.  1301.43(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A courtesy copy of the Show Cause Order was also sent to 
Respondent's counsel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Findings

    Respondent held DEA Certificate of Registration, BB1336456, which 
expired on July 31, 2006. Respondent did not file a renewal application 
until August 8, 2006. Because Respondent's renewal application was 
untimely, I find that Respondent does not have a current registration. 
See 5 U.S.C. 558(c). Respondent does, however, have an application 
which remains pending before the Agency.
    On June 9, 1999, Respondent voluntarily surrendered his Ohio 
medical license to avoid further formal proceedings based on his 
failure to comply with a consent agreement with the Ohio Medical Board 
under which he was required to surrender his DEA registration and could 
not apply for a new registration absent the state board's approval. 
According to the records of the Ohio board, Respondent had admitted 
that he ``suffered impairment due to excessive or habitual use of drugs 
and alcohol.'' See Ohio Medical Board Formal Actions Against Craig 
Howard Bammer, at 2. Respondent eventually did surrender his DEA 
registration.
    On July 24, 2003, Respondent submitted an application to renew his 
DEA registration.\2\ While on this application Respondent acknowledged 
that he had been subjected to disciplinary proceedings with respect to 
both his Ohio and Florida medical licenses, Respondent answered ``no'' 
to the question of whether he had ``ever surrendered'' his DEA 
registration. Moreover, according to the Agency's registration records, 
on his August 2006 application, Respondent again acknowledged the prior 
actions against his state licenses. The registration record does not, 
however, establish how Respondent answered the liability question 
related to his DEA registration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ By this date, Respondent had already regained a DEA 
registration, as a renewal application stated that ``your crrent 
registration expires on 07-31-2003.'' Renewal Application for 
Registration (Dtd. July 7, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As for the other allegations, the investigative file establishes 
that in January 2007, an undercover officer obtained a prescription for 
Roxicodone, a schedule II controlled substance from Respondent without 
the latter having performed a physical examination. Moreover, the 
undercover officer also obtained a prescription for a third person who 
was not present. The investigative file does not, however, indicate 
what drug the prescription was for.
    The investigative file also indicates that in February 2007, the 
undercover officer obtained additional prescriptions for Roxicodone in 
exchange for the officer's agreeing to pay Respondent's electric bill. 
Shortly thereafter, Respondent was arrested and charged with several 
counts of trafficking in illegal drugs, a felony offense under Florida 
law. See Fla. Stat. Ann. 893.135. According to the online records of 
the Pinellas County Courts, Respondent awaits trial on these charges.
    Moreover, on May 25, 2007, the Florida Department of Health issued 
an emergency order suspending Respondent's medical license. Thereafter, 
on June 21, 2007, the Florida Department of Health revoked Respondent's 
medical license.

Discussion

    Under section 304(a) of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), a 
registration ``may be suspended or revoked by the Attorney General upon 
a finding that the registrant * * * has materially falsified any 
application filed pursuant to or required by this subchapter.'' 21 
U.S.C. 824(a)(1). The Attorney General may also suspend or revoke a 
registration ``upon a finding that the registrant * * * has had his 
State license or registration suspended, revoked, or denied by 
competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to 
engage in the * * * dispensing of controlled substances.'' Id. Sec.  
824(a)(3). Under agency precedent, the various grounds for revocation 
or suspension of an existing registration which Congress enumerated in 
section 304(a), 21 U.S.C. 824(a), are also properly considered in 
deciding whether to grant or deny a registration under section 303. See 
The Lawsons, Inc., 72 FR 74334, 74338 (2007); Kuen H. Chen, 58 FR 
65401, 65402 (1993).
    In this matter, the Order to Show Cause alleged three separate 
grounds for this proceeding. I conclude that it is unnecessary to 
address the allegations related to Respondent's prescribing of 
controlled substances without a legitimate medical purpose. Instead, I 
find that because Respondent materially falsified his 2003 application 
for a DEA registration and lacks authority under state law to prescribe 
a controlled substance, he is not entitled to hold a DEA registration. 
Accordingly, his application will be denied.

The Material Falsification Allegation

    Respondent materially falsified his 2003 application for a DEA 
registration when he failed to disclose that he had previously 
surrendered his DEA registration. As this Agency has repeatedly held, 
`` `[t]he provision of truthful information on applications is 
absolutely essential to effectuating [the] statutory purpose' of 
determining whether the granting of an application is consistent with 
the public interest.'' The Lawsons, 72 FR at 74338 (quoting Peter H. 
Ahles, 71 FR 50097, 50098 (2006)). See also Hoxie v. DEA, 419 F.3d 477, 
483 (6th Cir. 2005) (``Candor * * * is considered by the DEA to be an 
important factor when assessing whether a * * * registration is 
consistent with the public interest.'').
    A false statement is material if it ``has a natural tendency to 
influence, or was capable of influencing, the decision of the 
decisionmaking body to which it was addressed.'' Kungys v. United 
States, 485 U.S. 759, 770 (1988) (int. quotation and other citations 
omitted). Moreover, while the evidence must be ``clear, unequivocal, 
and convincing,'' the ``ultimate finding of materiality turns on an 
interpretation of the substantive law.'' Id. at 772 (int. quotations 
and other citation omitted).
    This Agency has previously held that ``[a]n applicant's answers to 
the various liability questions are material because [it] `relies upon 
such answers to determine whether an investigation is needed prior to 
granting the application.' ''The Lawsons, 72 FR at 74338 (quoting 
Martha Hernandez, 62 FR 61145, 61146 (1997)). Notably, in determining 
whether the granting of an application is in the public interest, the 
Agency is required to consider ``[t]he applicant's experience in 
dispensing * * * controlled substances,'' his ``[c]ompliance with 
applicable State, Federal or local laws relating to controlled 
substances,'' and ``other conduct which may threaten public health and 
safety.'' 21 U.S.C. 823(f). And in making determinations with respect 
to these factors, DEA has repeatedly considered an applicant's or an 
existing registrant's history of abusing controlled substances. See, 
e.g., Patrick K. Riggs, 72 FR 71959 (2007); Alan H. Olefsky, 72 FR 
42127 (2007); Alan H. Olefsky, 57 FR 928 (1992).

[[Page 34329]]

    I thus conclude that Respondent's failure to disclose the earlier 
surrender of his DEA registration was a material misrepresentation 
because it ``ha[d] a natural tendency to influence the * * * decision'' 
of the Agency as to whether to grant his application for a new 
registration.\3\ Under DEA precedent, this act ``provides an 
independent and adequate ground for denying'' Respondent's application. 
The Lawsons, 72 FR at 74338; Cf. Bobby Watts, 58 FR 46997 (1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ While Respondent indicated on 2003 application that both his 
Florida and Ohio licenses had been subjected to discipline, he 
further stated that the basis of the discipline was his ``abuse of a 
non-controlled substance (Stadol nasal spray).'' Stadol nasal spray 
contains butorphanol tartrate, and is a schedule IV controlled 
substance. See 21 CFR 1308.14(f). Respondent's statement was thus an 
additional misrepresentation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Lack of State Authority Allegation

    As found above, on May 25, 2007, the Florida Department of Health 
issued an order which imposed an emergency suspension of Respondent's 
state medical license. Shortly thereafter, on June 21, 2007, the 
Florida Department of Health issued a further order which revoked 
Respondent's state medical license.
    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. Sec.  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.''). As these provisions make plain, 
possessing authority to dispense a controlled substance under the laws 
of the State in which a physician practices medicine is an essential 
condition for holding a DEA registration.
    Because Respondent's Florida medical license has been revoked, he 
is without authority under state law to handle controlled substance and 
does not meet an essential prerequisite under the CSA for obtaining a 
new DEA registration. See Richard Carino, M.D., 72 FR 71955, 71956 
(2007) (citing cases); 21 U.S.C. 823(f). Accordingly, his application 
will be denied for this reason as well.

Order

    Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f), as well 
as 28 CFR 0.100(b) & 0.104, I hereby order that the application of 
Craig H. Bammer, D.O., for the renewal of his registration be, and it 
hereby is, denied. This order is effective July 17, 2008.

    Dated: June 6, 2008.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Deputy Administrator.
 [FR Doc. E8-13609 Filed 6-16-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.