Mladen Antolic, M.D.; Decision and Order, 3796-3797 [2012-1492]

Download as PDF 3796 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Notices abstract: Primary: Business or other forprofit. Other: Individual or households. Need for Collection The form is primarily used when a Federal firearms licensee makes application to change the location of the business premises. The form is also used for changes of trade or business name, changes of mailing address, changes of contact information, changes of hours of operation/availability, and allows for licensees to indicate any changes of business structure. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: It is estimated that 18,000 respondents will complete a 30 minute form once annually. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: There are an estimated 9,000 annual total burden hours associated with this collection. If additional information is required contact: Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, Department of Justice, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., Room 2E–508, Washington, DC 20530. Jerri Murray, Department Clearance Officer, PRA, U.S. Department of Justice. [FR Doc. 2012–1376 Filed 1–24–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–FY–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Mladen Antolic, M.D.; Decision and Order On August 8, 2011, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to Show Cause to Mladen Antolic, M.D. (Registrant), of Orlando, Florida. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Registrant’s DEA Certificate of Registration BA1325528, as a practitioner in Schedules II through V, on the ground that he does ‘‘not have authority to practice medicine or handle controlled substances in the state of Florida.’’ Show Cause Order at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)). The Show Cause Order alleged that ‘‘on or about March 29, 2011, the Florida Department of Health [had] ordered the emergency suspension of [Registrant’s] medical license,’’ and that he is thus ‘‘without authority to handle controlled substances in the State of Florida, the state in which [he is] VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:09 Jan 24, 2012 Jkt 226001 registered with DEA.’’ Id. The Show Cause Order alleged that the state suspension was based on allegations that Registrant had engaged ‘‘in sexual activity with patient(s),’’ that he ‘‘[i]nappropriately dispens[ed], administer[ed] or otherwise provid[ed] controlled substances to individuals in [his] home as payment for sex or for recreational use,’’ and that he had ‘‘[a]dminister[ed] controlled substances to [him]self when such controlled substances were not prescribed to [him] by a practitioner authorized to prescribe, dispense or administer medicinal drugs.’’ Id. at 1–2 (citing Fla. Sta. § 458.331(1)(j), (q), (r)). In addition to the allegations, the Order notified Registrant of his right to request a hearing on the allegations or to submit a written statement in lieu of a hearing, the procedure for doing either, and the consequence for failing to do either. Id. at 2 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). On August 12, 2011, DEA Diversion Investigators personally served the Show Cause Order on Registrant, in the presence of his attorney. GX 3 (Affidavit of DI). Since the date of service of the Order, thirty days have now have passed and neither Registrant, nor anyone purporting to represent him, has requested a hearing or submitted a written statement in lieu of a hearing. I therefore find that Registrant has waived his right to a hearing or to submit a written statement in lieu of a hearing and issue this Decision and Final Order based on relevant evidence contained in the record submitted by the Government. 21 CFR 1301.43(d) & (e). I make the following findings of fact. Findings Registrant is the holder of DEA Certificate of Registration BA1325528, which authorizes him to dispense controlled substances in Schedules II through V, as a practitioner, at the registered address of 509 W. Colonial Drive, Orlando, Florida 32804. GX 1. His registration has an expiration date of June 30, 2012. Id. On March 29, 2011, the Acting State Surgeon General of the Florida Department of Health (DOH) issued to Registrant an Order of Emergency Suspension of License (hereinafter, DOH Order). GX 4, at 11. The State Surgeon General suspended Registrant’s license based on findings that he violated Florida Statutes sections 458.331(1)(j) (exercising influence within a patient-physician relationship for purposes of engaging a patient in sexual activity), 458.331(1)(q) (inappropriately dispensing, administering or otherwise providing oxycodone, cocaine or Xanax to people PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 at his home), and 458.331(1)(r) (engaging in prescribing, dispensing or administering any medicinal drug appearing on any schedule * * * to himself * * * except one prescribed * * * by another practitioner authorized to prescribe, dispense or administer medicinal drugs.). DOH Order, at 8–9. Registrant did not dispute or respond to the State’s allegations. GX 5, at 1 (Final Order, at 2, Department of Health v. Mladen Antolic, M.D., DOH Case No. 2010–20687 (Fla. Bd. of Med. Oct. 6, 2010)). Accordingly, on October 6, 2011, the Florida Board of Medicine issued a final order revoking Registrant’s state medical license. Id. at 2. I therefore find that Registrant currently lacks authority under Florida law to dispense controlled substances. Discussion The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) grants the Attorney General authority to revoke 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.’’ 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3). Moreover, DEA has long held that 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 Gerald T. Hanley, 53 FR 5658 (1988). This rule derives from the text of the CSA, which defines ‘‘the term ‘practitioner’ [to] mean[] a * * * physician * * * or other person 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,’’ 21 U.S.C. 802(21), and which imposes, as a condition for obtaining a registration, that a practitioner be authorized to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices. See 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 under state law to dispense controlled substances is an essential condition for holding a DEA registration. See 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). Therefore, because E:\FR\FM\25JAN1.SGM 25JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Notices Registrant no longer has authority to dispense controlled substances in the State in which he holds his DEA registration and formerly engaged in professional practice, he is not entitled to maintain his DEA registration. See 21 U.S.C. 802(21), 823(f), and 824(a)(3). Accordingly, Registrant’s registration will be revoked. Order Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I order that DEA Certificate of Registration BA1325528, issued to Mladen Antolic, M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. I further order that any pending application of Mladen Antolic, M.D., to renew or modify his registration, be, and it hereby is, denied. This Order is effective immediately.1 Dated: December 23, 2011. Michele M. Leonhart, Administrator. [FR Doc. 2012–1492 Filed 1–24–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–09–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Joseph Deluca, D.O.; Dismissal of Proceeding On July 16, 2010, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to Show Cause to Joseph Deluca, D.O. (Registrant), of Coral Springs, Florida. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Registrant’s DEA Certificate of Registration as a practitioner and the denial of any pending applications to renew or modify his registration, on the ground that ‘‘[a]s a result of action by the Florida Department of Health, Board of Osteopathic Medicine, [he is] without authority to handle controlled substances in the State of Florida, the [S]tate in which [he is] registered with DEA.’’ Show Cause Order at 1. On July 27, 2010, the Government attempted to serve the Order to Show Cause on Registrant by certified mail, return receipt requested, which was addressed to him at his registered location. However, on August 9, 2010, the mailing was returned to DEA and stamped with the notations: ‘‘MOVED, LEFT NO ADDRESS’’ and ‘‘RETURNED TO SENDER.’’ GX 4. 1 For the same reasons that the State imposed its emergency suspension of Respondent’s medical license, I conclude that the public interest requires that this Order be effective immediately. 21 CFR 1316.66. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:09 Jan 24, 2012 Jkt 226001 On December 30, 2010, the Government submitted the investigative record and a Request for Final Agency Action to this Office. Therein, the Government stated that: ‘‘[t]he Order to Show Cause was delivered via certified mail to the registered location of the Registrant, but was returned unclaimed. The Government has no information on a forwarding address for the Registrant or of his whereabouts.’’ Request for Final Agency Action, at 1. In its Request, the Government noted that on November 12, 2008, the Florida Department of Health, Board of Osteopathic Medicine (Board), issued an administrative complaint to Registrant. Id. The Government further noted that on March 23, 2010, the Board issued a final order (a copy of which was submitted in the Investigative Record) suspending Registrant’s medical license for a period of two years. Id. at 1–2. In its discussion of the procedural history of the Board proceeding, the Board’s Final Order stated that ‘‘[o]n October 12, 2009, the Petitioner [Florida Department of Health] received a request from the Respondent for a Hearing Not Involving Disputes Issues of Material Fact or Informal Hearing.’’ GX 6, at 1. The Board’s Final Order then noted that the ‘‘Petitioner has filed a Motion for Final Order by Hearing Not Involving Disputes Issues of Material Facts,’’ and that ‘‘Respondent filed a response to the Motion for Final Order.’’ Id. The Final Order also included a Certificate of Service, which noted that a copy of the order had been mailed to Respondent at an address in Pembroke Pines, Florida. Id. at 8. Discussion It is well settled ‘‘that due process requires the government to provide ‘notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.’ ’’ Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220, 223 (2006) (quoting Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950)). Moreover, ‘‘ ‘when notice is a person’s due * * * [t]he means employed must be such as one desirous of actually informing the absentee might reasonably adopt to accomplish it.’ ’’ Jones, 547 U.S. at 229 (quoting Mullane, 339 U.S. at 315). In Jones, the Court further noted that its cases ‘‘require[] the government to consider unique information about an intended recipient regardless of whether a statutory scheme is reasonably calculated to provide notice in the ordinary case.’’ Id. at 230. The Court cited with approval its decision in PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 3797 Robinson v. Hanrahan, 409 U.S. 38 (1972), where it ‘‘held that notice of forfeiture proceedings sent to a vehicle owner’s home address was inadequate when the State knew that the property owner was in prison.’’ Jones, 547 U.S. at 230.1 See also Robinson, 409 U.S. at 40 (‘‘[T]he State knew that appellant was not at the address to which the notice was mailed * * * since he was at that very time confined in * * * jail. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the State made any effort to provide notice which was ‘reasonably calculated’ to apprise appellant of the pendency of the * * * proceedings.’’); Covey v. Town of Somers, 351 U.S. 141 (1956) (holding that notice by mailing, publication, and posting was inadequate when officials knew that recipient was incompetent). The Jones Court further explained that ‘‘under Robinson and Covey, the government’s knowledge that notice pursuant to the normal procedure was ineffective triggered an obligation on the government’s part to take additional steps to effect notice.’’ 547 U.S. at 230. The Court also noted that ‘‘a party’s ability to take steps to safeguard its own interests [such as by updating his address] does not relieve the State of its constitutional obligation.’’ Id. at 232 (quoting Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 16 n.5 (quoting Mennonite Bd. of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791, 799 (1983))). However, the Government is not required to undertake ‘‘heroic efforts’’ to find a registrant. Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161, 170 (2002). Here, it is clear that ‘‘ ‘[t]he means employed’ ’’ by the Government were not ‘‘ ‘such as one desirous of actually informing the [registrant] might reasonably adopt to accomplish it.’ ’’ Jones, 547 U.S. at 229 (quoting Mullane, 339 U.S. at 315). While in its Request for Final Agency Action, the Government asserts that it ‘‘has no information on a forwarding address for the Registrant or of his whereabouts,’’ the very state board order it relies upon as the basis 1 The CSA states that ‘‘[b]efore taking action pursuant to [21 U.S.C. 824(a)] * * * the Attorney General shall serve upon the * * * registrant an order to show cause why registration should not be * * * revoked[] or suspended.’’ 21 U.S.C. 824(c). In contrast to the schemes challenged in Jones and Robinson, which provided for service to the property owner’s address as listed in state records, neither the CSA nor Agency regulations state that service shall be made at any particular address such as the registered location. In any event, while in most cases, service to a registrant’s registered location provides adequate notice, the Supreme Court’s clear instruction is that the Government cannot ignore ‘‘unique information about an intended recipient’’ when its seeks to serve that person with notice of a proceeding that it is initiating. Jones, 547 U.S. at 230. E:\FR\FM\25JAN1.SGM 25JAN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 25, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3796-3797]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1492]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Mladen Antolic, M.D.; Decision and Order

    On August 8, 2011, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to 
Show Cause to Mladen Antolic, M.D. (Registrant), of Orlando, Florida. 
The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Registrant's DEA 
Certificate of Registration BA1325528, as a practitioner in Schedules 
II through V, on the ground that he does ``not have authority to 
practice medicine or handle controlled substances in the state of 
Florida.'' Show Cause Order at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).
    The Show Cause Order alleged that ``on or about March 29, 2011, the 
Florida Department of Health [had] ordered the emergency suspension of 
[Registrant's] medical license,'' and that he is thus ``without 
authority to handle controlled substances in the State of Florida, the 
state in which [he is] registered with DEA.'' Id. The Show Cause Order 
alleged that the state suspension was based on allegations that 
Registrant had engaged ``in sexual activity with patient(s),'' that he 
``[i]nappropriately dispens[ed], administer[ed] or otherwise provid[ed] 
controlled substances to individuals in [his] home as payment for sex 
or for recreational use,'' and that he had ``[a]dminister[ed] 
controlled substances to [him]self when such controlled substances were 
not prescribed to [him] by a practitioner authorized to prescribe, 
dispense or administer medicinal drugs.'' Id. at 1-2 (citing Fla. Sta. 
Sec.  458.331(1)(j), (q), (r)). In addition to the allegations, the 
Order notified Registrant of his right to request a hearing on the 
allegations or to submit a written statement in lieu of a hearing, the 
procedure for doing either, and the consequence for failing to do 
either. Id. at 2 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43).
    On August 12, 2011, DEA Diversion Investigators personally served 
the Show Cause Order on Registrant, in the presence of his attorney. GX 
3 (Affidavit of DI). Since the date of service of the Order, thirty 
days have now have passed and neither Registrant, nor anyone purporting 
to represent him, has requested a hearing or submitted a written 
statement in lieu of a hearing. I therefore find that Registrant has 
waived his right to a hearing or to submit a written statement in lieu 
of a hearing and issue this Decision and Final Order based on relevant 
evidence contained in the record submitted by the Government. 21 CFR 
1301.43(d) & (e). I make the following findings of fact.

Findings

    Registrant is the holder of DEA Certificate of Registration 
BA1325528, which authorizes him to dispense controlled substances in 
Schedules II through V, as a practitioner, at the registered address of 
509 W. Colonial Drive, Orlando, Florida 32804. GX 1. His registration 
has an expiration date of June 30, 2012. Id.
    On March 29, 2011, the Acting State Surgeon General of the Florida 
Department of Health (DOH) issued to Registrant an Order of Emergency 
Suspension of License (hereinafter, DOH Order). GX 4, at 11. The State 
Surgeon General suspended Registrant's license based on findings that 
he violated Florida Statutes sections 458.331(1)(j) (exercising 
influence within a patient-physician relationship for purposes of 
engaging a patient in sexual activity), 458.331(1)(q) (inappropriately 
dispensing, administering or otherwise providing oxycodone, cocaine or 
Xanax to people at his home), and 458.331(1)(r) (engaging in 
prescribing, dispensing or administering any medicinal drug appearing 
on any schedule * * * to himself * * * except one prescribed * * * by 
another practitioner authorized to prescribe, dispense or administer 
medicinal drugs.). DOH Order, at 8-9.
    Registrant did not dispute or respond to the State's allegations. 
GX 5, at 1 (Final Order, at 2, Department of Health v. Mladen Antolic, 
M.D., DOH Case No. 2010-20687 (Fla. Bd. of Med. Oct. 6, 2010)). 
Accordingly, on October 6, 2011, the Florida Board of Medicine issued a 
final order revoking Registrant's state medical license. Id. at 2. I 
therefore find that Registrant currently lacks authority under Florida 
law to dispense controlled substances.

Discussion

    The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) grants the Attorney General 
authority to revoke 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.'' 21 U.S.C. 
824(a)(3). Moreover, DEA has long held that 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 Gerald T. Hanley, 53 FR 5658 (1988). This rule 
derives from the text of the CSA, which defines ``the term 
`practitioner' [to] mean[] a * * * physician * * * or other person 
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,'' 21 
U.S.C. 802(21), and which imposes, as a condition for obtaining a 
registration, that a practitioner be authorized to dispense controlled 
substances under the laws of the State in which he practices. See 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 under state 
law to dispense controlled substances is an essential condition for 
holding a DEA registration. See 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). Therefore, because

[[Page 3797]]

Registrant no longer has authority to dispense controlled substances in 
the State in which he holds his DEA registration and formerly engaged 
in professional practice, he is not entitled to maintain his DEA 
registration. See 21 U.S.C. 802(21), 823(f), and 824(a)(3). 
Accordingly, Registrant's registration will be revoked.

Order

    Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 
824(a), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I order that DEA Certificate of 
Registration BA1325528, issued to Mladen Antolic, M.D., be, and it 
hereby is, revoked. I further order that any pending application of 
Mladen Antolic, M.D., to renew or modify his registration, be, and it 
hereby is, denied. This Order is effective immediately.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For the same reasons that the State imposed its emergency 
suspension of Respondent's medical license, I conclude that the 
public interest requires that this Order be effective immediately. 
21 CFR 1316.66.

    Dated: December 23, 2011.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-1492 Filed 1-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P

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