James Stephen Ferguson, D.M.D.; Revocation of Registration, 49994-49995 [2010-20192]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
49994
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 157 / Monday, August 16, 2010 / Notices
supervision of a doctor so as to prevent
addiction and recreational abuse. As a
corollary, [it] also bars doctors from
peddling to patients who crave the
drugs for those prohibited uses.’’
Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 274
(2006) (citing United States v. Moore,
423 U.S. 122, 135, 143 (1975)).
Under the CSA, it is fundamental that
a practitioner must establish and
maintain a bonafide doctor-patient
relationship in order to act ‘‘in the usual
course of * * * professional practice’’
and to issue a prescription for a
‘‘legitimate medical purpose.’’ Laurence
T. McKinney, 73 FR 43260, 43265 n.22
(2008); see also Moore, 423 U.S. at 142–
43 (noting that evidence established that
physician ‘‘exceeded the bounds of
‘professional practice,’’’ when ‘‘he gave
inadequate physical examinations or
none at all,’’ ‘‘ignored the results of the
tests he did make,’’ and ‘‘took no
precautions against * * * misuse and
diversion’’). While the CSA generally
looks to state law to determine whether
a doctor and patient have established a
bonafide doctor-patient relationship, see
Kamir Garces-Mejias, 72 FR 54931,
54935 (2007); United Prescription
Services, Inc., 72 FR 50397, 50407
(2007), here, there is no need to analyze
the applicable provisions of Colorado
law because Respondent admitted in his
plea agreement that he acted outside of
the usual course of professional practice
and lacked a legitimate medical purpose
in issuing the prescriptions which he
sold to the undercover officer.
As found above, on four different
occasions, Respondent sold
prescriptions for oxycodone, a schedule
II controlled substance, to an
undercover police officer. Three of the
prescriptions were for either 60 (Oct. 17)
or 150 (Nov. 6 & 25) tablets of 30 mg.
strength; the remaining prescription was
for 320 tablets of 10 mg. strength. In
addition, Respondent also physically
distributed to the undercover officer 60
tablets of oxycodone 10 mg., three
tablets of MDMA/ecstasy, one fentanyl
patch, and four tablets of fentanyl 400
mcg., all of which are schedule II
controlled substances. In exchange,
Respondent received cash payments of
$100 at the first transaction and $1000
at the remaining three. As Respondent
has admitted, his conduct during each
of the four transactions bears no
semblance to the legitimate practice of
medicine. Rather, during each of these
transactions, he engaged in a drug deal
and violated 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1).
I thus conclude that Respondent’s
experience in dispensing controlled
substances and his criminal conduct in
violation of Federal law make clear that
his continued registration ‘‘is
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:51 Aug 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
inconsistent with the public interest.’’
21 U.S.C. 823(f). Finally, for the same
reasons which led me to find that
Respondent posed ‘‘an imminent danger
to the public health or safety,’’ id.
section 824(d), I conclude that the
public interest requires that his
registration be revoked effective
immediately and that any pending
applications be denied. See 21 CFR
1316.67.
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) & 0.104, I hereby order
that DEA Certificate of Registration,
BG2107856, issued to Peter W.S. Grigg,
M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. This
Order is effective immediately.
Dated: July 30, 2010.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010–20201 Filed 8–13–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 09–64]
James Stephen Ferguson, D.M.D.;
Revocation of Registration
On July 24, 2009, the Deputy
Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA), issued an Order
to Show Cause to James Stephen
Ferguson, D.M.D. (Respondent), of
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The Show
Cause Order proposed the revocation of
Respondent’s DEA Certificate of
Registration, as a practitioner,
BF6211762, on the ground that
Respondent’s ‘‘license to practice
dentistry in the state of Pennsylvania
expired on March 31, 2009’’ and that he
is ‘‘currently without authority to handle
controlled substances in Pennsylvania,
the state in which [he is] registered with
DEA.’’ Show Cause Order at 1. The
Show Cause Order also proposed the
denial of ‘‘any pending applications for
renewal or modification of’’
Respondent’s registration. Id.
The Show Cause Order alleged that
Respondent’s DEA registration does not
expire until September 30, 2010, but
that Respondent’s Pennsylvania dental
license had expired on March 31, 2009.
Id. Next, the Show Cause Order alleged
that commencing no later than June
2006, Respondent had issued dozens of
prescriptions for schedule III controlled
substances containing hydrocodone to
his girlfriend L.J. ‘‘for no legitimate
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
medical purpose and not in the course
of professional practice, in violation of
21 U.S.C. 841(a) and 21 CFR
1306.04(a).’’ Id. at 2. The Order alleged
that while Respondent used his
girlfriend’s real name on some
prescriptions, on others he used false
names to ‘‘disguise the true recipient of
the controlled substances.’’ Id.
The Show Cause Order further alleged
that when DEA Investigators searched
his office, Respondent ‘‘could not
explain the fact that [he] did not have
a patient file’’ on his girlfriend, and that
he admitted to investigators that he
knew L.J. ‘‘was addicted to
hydrocodone.’’ Id. Finally, the Order
alleged that Respondent ‘‘continued to
issue controlled substance prescriptions
during the month of April 2009’’ despite
the fact that his Pennsylvania dental
license expired on March 31, 2009. Id.
On September 1, 2009, a Diversion
Investigator (DI) went to Respondent’s
residence and left a copy of the Order
to Show Cause with L.J. and his
nephew, who agreed to give it to
Respondent. See Gov’t Submission of
Evidence of Service of Process, Ex. A
(declaration of DI). On September 15,
2009, Respondent requested a hearing
and the matter was placed on the docket
of the Agency’s Administrative Law
Judges (ALJs).
On October 13, 2009, the Government
moved for summary disposition. The
basis of the motion was that Respondent
‘‘is not duly authorized to possess,
dispense or otherwise handle controlled
substances in the State of Pennsylvania,
the jurisdiction in which [he] engages in
the practice of dentistry,’’ and therefore,
he is not entitled to hold a DEA
registration. Gov’t Mot. Summ. Disp., at
1–2. As support for the motion, the
Government submitted a Certificate and
Attestation signed by Lisa M. Burns,
Board Administrator, Pennsylvania
State Board of Dentistry, Bureau of
Professional and Occupational Affairs.
Therein, Ms. Burns stated that
Respondent’s license to practice
dentistry in Pennsylvania was issued on
February 2, 1999, and had expired on
March 31, 2009. Id., Ex. A. Respondent
did not file a response to the
Government’s motion. Order Granting
Gov’t Mot. for Summ. Disp. at 2.
On October 22, 2009, the ALJ granted
the Government’s motion. Id. at 4. The
ALJ found that there was no dispute
over the material fact that Respondent
no longer holds a state dental license
and that he therefore lacks authority
under Pennsylvania law to handle
controlled substances in the State. Id. at
3. In accordance with the CSA and
agency precedent, the ALJ held that
because Respondent lacks this
E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM
16AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 157 / Monday, August 16, 2010 / Notices
authority, he ‘‘is not entitled to maintain
his DEA registration.’’ Id. at 3–4. The
ALJ thus recommended that I revoke
Respondent’s registration and deny any
pending renewal application. ALJ at 4.
Neither party filed exceptions to the
ALJ’s recommended decision. The ALJ
then forwarded the record to me for
final agency action. Having considered
the entire record in this matter, I adopt
the ALJ’s recommended decision in its
entirety and will revoke Respondent’s
registration and deny any pending
applications. I make the following
findings:
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Findings
Respondent obtained his license to
practice dentistry in the State of
Pennsylvania on February 2, 1999. Gov’t
Mot., Ex. A. Respondent’s authority to
practice dentistry in Pennsylvania
expired on March 31, 2009. Id.
Respondent also holds DEA
Certificate of Registration, BF6211762,
which authorizes him to dispense
controlled substances in schedules II
through V as a practitioner at the
registered address of 2A Old Clairton
Road, Pittsburgh, Pa. Respondent’s
registration was last renewed on
February 4, 2008, and does not expire
until September 30, 2010.
Discussion
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.’’). As these provisions make
plain, possessing authority under state
law to handle controlled substances is
an essential condition for holding a DEA
registration.
Accordingly, DEA has held repeatedly
that the CSA requires the revocation of
a registration issued to a practitioner
whose state license has been suspended
or revoked. David W. Wang, 72 FR
54297, 54298 (2007); 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:51 Aug 13, 2010
Jkt 220001
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’’).
Moreover, the Agency has interpreted
the CSA to require the revocation of a
registration upon a practitioner’s loss of
state authority ‘‘not only where a
registrant’s authority has been
suspended or revoked, but also where a
practitioner * * * has lost his state
authority for reasons other than through
formal disciplinary action of a State
board.’’ John B. Freitas, 74 FR 17524,
17525 (2009). Thus, even when a
registrant ceases to possess authority to
handle controlled substance in the State
in which he practices through the
expiration of a dental license or separate
state controlled substances registration
(when required), the Agency has
revoked the practitioner’s registration.
Mark L. Beck, 64 FR 40899, 408900
(1999); Charles H. Ryan, 58 FR 14430
(1993).
Here, there is no dispute over the
material fact that Respondent has
allowed his Pennsylvania Dental
License to expire and that he therefore
lacks authority under Pennsylvania law
to dispense control substances.
Respondent is therefore not entitled to
maintain his DEA registration, which
will be revoked.
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) & 0.104, I order that
DEA Certificate of Registration,
BF6211762, issued to James S.
Ferguson, D.M.D., be, and it hereby is,
revoked. I further order that any
pending application of James S.
Ferguson, D.M.D., to renew or modify
his registration, be, and it hereby is
denied. This Order is effective
September 15, 2010.
Dated: July 30, 2010.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010–20192 Filed 8–13–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 09–22]
Robert F. Hunt, D.O. Revocation of
Registration
On November 25, 2008, I, the Deputy
Administrator of the Drug Enforcement
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
49995
Administration (DEA), issued an Order
to Show Cause and Immediate
Suspension of Registration to Robert F.
Hunt, D.O. (Respondent), of Fort
Lauderdale, Florida. The Show Cause
Order proposed the revocation of
Respondent’s Certificate of Registration,
BH1292642, which authorizes him to
dispense schedule II through V
controlled substances as a practitioner,
on the ground that his ‘‘continued
registration is inconsistent with the
public interest, as that term is defined
in 21 U.S.C. 823(f).’’ Order to Show
Cause at 1. The Order immediately
suspended Respondent’s registration
based on my conclusion that his
continued registration during the
pendency of the proceeding would
‘‘constitute[] an imminent danger to the
public health and safety.’’ Id. at 2 (citing
21 U.S.C. 824(d)).
More specifically, the Show Cause
Order alleged that on April 10, 2008,
Respondent ‘‘issued a prescription for an
anabolic steroid, a Schedule III
controlled substance,’’ to a patient
without referring ‘‘to the patient’s
medical file or conduct[ing] a medical
examination of this patient.’’ Id. at 1.
The Order further alleged that
Respondent ‘‘issued the prescription
solely because [this] patient requested
anabolic steroids,’’ that he had
‘‘previously issued numerous
prescriptions for controlled substances
to this patient,’’ and that ‘‘in some
instances,’’ he had ‘‘accepted illicit
drugs as payment for these
prescriptions.’’ Id. at 1–2. The Order
thus alleged that Respondent’s conduct
violated 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and 844. Id.
at 2.
Next, the Show Cause Order alleged
that, on April 24, 2008, Respondent
‘‘issued two prescriptions for two brands
of anabolic steroids to another patient,’’
who was ‘‘a police detective acting in an
undercover capacity,’’ and who
‘‘presented no legitimate medical reason
to justify the * * * prescriptions.’’ Id. at
2. The Order alleged that neither
Respondent, nor his staff, ‘‘perform[ed]
any medical tests or exams on this
patient’’ and that Respondent ‘‘stated
that [he] would list a fictitious ailment
in [the patient’s] medical record to
justify [his] prescribing of anabolic
steroids.’’ Id. The Order alleged that
‘‘[t]hese prescriptions were not for a
legitimate medical purpose in the usual
course of professional practice’’ and that
in issuing them, Respondent violated
Florida Statute § 893.13(8)(a)(1), which
‘‘prohibits a prescribing practitioner
from knowingly assisting a patient in
obtaining a controlled substance
through deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent
representations in or related to the
E:\FR\FM\16AUN1.SGM
16AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 157 (Monday, August 16, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49994-49995]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-20192]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 09-64]
James Stephen Ferguson, D.M.D.; Revocation of Registration
On July 24, 2009, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an
Order to Show Cause to James Stephen Ferguson, D.M.D. (Respondent), of
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation
of Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration, as a practitioner,
BF6211762, on the ground that Respondent's ``license to practice
dentistry in the state of Pennsylvania expired on March 31, 2009'' and
that he is ``currently without authority to handle controlled
substances in Pennsylvania, the state in which [he is] registered with
DEA.'' Show Cause Order at 1. The Show Cause Order also proposed the
denial of ``any pending applications for renewal or modification of''
Respondent's registration. Id.
The Show Cause Order alleged that Respondent's DEA registration
does not expire until September 30, 2010, but that Respondent's
Pennsylvania dental license had expired on March 31, 2009. Id. Next,
the Show Cause Order alleged that commencing no later than June 2006,
Respondent had issued dozens of prescriptions for schedule III
controlled substances containing hydrocodone to his girlfriend L.J.
``for no legitimate medical purpose and not in the course of
professional practice, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a) and 21 CFR
1306.04(a).'' Id. at 2. The Order alleged that while Respondent used
his girlfriend's real name on some prescriptions, on others he used
false names to ``disguise the true recipient of the controlled
substances.'' Id.
The Show Cause Order further alleged that when DEA Investigators
searched his office, Respondent ``could not explain the fact that [he]
did not have a patient file'' on his girlfriend, and that he admitted
to investigators that he knew L.J. ``was addicted to hydrocodone.'' Id.
Finally, the Order alleged that Respondent ``continued to issue
controlled substance prescriptions during the month of April 2009''
despite the fact that his Pennsylvania dental license expired on March
31, 2009. Id.
On September 1, 2009, a Diversion Investigator (DI) went to
Respondent's residence and left a copy of the Order to Show Cause with
L.J. and his nephew, who agreed to give it to Respondent. See Gov't
Submission of Evidence of Service of Process, Ex. A (declaration of
DI). On September 15, 2009, Respondent requested a hearing and the
matter was placed on the docket of the Agency's Administrative Law
Judges (ALJs).
On October 13, 2009, the Government moved for summary disposition.
The basis of the motion was that Respondent ``is not duly authorized to
possess, dispense or otherwise handle controlled substances in the
State of Pennsylvania, the jurisdiction in which [he] engages in the
practice of dentistry,'' and therefore, he is not entitled to hold a
DEA registration. Gov't Mot. Summ. Disp., at 1-2. As support for the
motion, the Government submitted a Certificate and Attestation signed
by Lisa M. Burns, Board Administrator, Pennsylvania State Board of
Dentistry, Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs. Therein,
Ms. Burns stated that Respondent's license to practice dentistry in
Pennsylvania was issued on February 2, 1999, and had expired on March
31, 2009. Id., Ex. A. Respondent did not file a response to the
Government's motion. Order Granting Gov't Mot. for Summ. Disp. at 2.
On October 22, 2009, the ALJ granted the Government's motion. Id.
at 4. The ALJ found that there was no dispute over the material fact
that Respondent no longer holds a state dental license and that he
therefore lacks authority under Pennsylvania law to handle controlled
substances in the State. Id. at 3. In accordance with the CSA and
agency precedent, the ALJ held that because Respondent lacks this
[[Page 49995]]
authority, he ``is not entitled to maintain his DEA registration.'' Id.
at 3-4. The ALJ thus recommended that I revoke Respondent's
registration and deny any pending renewal application. ALJ at 4.
Neither party filed exceptions to the ALJ's recommended decision.
The ALJ then forwarded the record to me for final agency action. Having
considered the entire record in this matter, I adopt the ALJ's
recommended decision in its entirety and will revoke Respondent's
registration and deny any pending applications. I make the following
findings:
Findings
Respondent obtained his license to practice dentistry in the State
of Pennsylvania on February 2, 1999. Gov't Mot., Ex. A. Respondent's
authority to practice dentistry in Pennsylvania expired on March 31,
2009. Id.
Respondent also holds DEA Certificate of Registration, BF6211762,
which authorizes him to dispense controlled substances in schedules II
through V as a practitioner at the registered address of 2A Old
Clairton Road, Pittsburgh, Pa. Respondent's registration was last
renewed on February 4, 2008, and does not expire until September 30,
2010.
Discussion
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.''). As these provisions make plain,
possessing authority under state law to handle controlled substances is
an essential condition for holding a DEA registration.
Accordingly, DEA has held repeatedly that the CSA requires the
revocation of a registration issued to a practitioner whose state
license has been suspended or revoked. David W. Wang, 72 FR 54297,
54298 (2007); 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'').
Moreover, the Agency has interpreted the CSA to require the
revocation of a registration upon a practitioner's loss of state
authority ``not only where a registrant's authority has been suspended
or revoked, but also where a practitioner * * * has lost his state
authority for reasons other than through formal disciplinary action of
a State board.'' John B. Freitas, 74 FR 17524, 17525 (2009). Thus, even
when a registrant ceases to possess authority to handle controlled
substance in the State in which he practices through the expiration of
a dental license or separate state controlled substances registration
(when required), the Agency has revoked the practitioner's
registration. Mark L. Beck, 64 FR 40899, 408900 (1999); Charles H.
Ryan, 58 FR 14430 (1993).
Here, there is no dispute over the material fact that Respondent
has allowed his Pennsylvania Dental License to expire and that he
therefore lacks authority under Pennsylvania law to dispense control
substances. Respondent is therefore not entitled to maintain his DEA
registration, which will be revoked.
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) & 0.104, I order that DEA
Certificate of Registration, BF6211762, issued to James S. Ferguson,
D.M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. I further order that any pending
application of James S. Ferguson, D.M.D., to renew or modify his
registration, be, and it hereby is denied. This Order is effective
September 15, 2010.
Dated: July 30, 2010.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-20192 Filed 8-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
