Jeffery J. Becker, D.D.S., and Jeffery J. Becker, D.D.S., Affordable Care Decision and Order, 72387-72408 [2012-29333]

Agencies

• Drug Enforcement Administration
• Department of Justice

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72387-72408]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29333]



[[Page 72387]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. 11-73]


Jeffery J. Becker, D.D.S., and Jeffery J. Becker, D.D.S., 
Affordable Care Decision and Order

    On December 22, 2011, Chief Administrative Law Judge John J. 
Mulrooney, II, (hereinafter, ALJ), issued the attached Recommended 
Decision.\1\ Respondent filed Exceptions to the ALJ's Decision, and the 
Government filed a Response to Respondent's Exceptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All citations to the ALJ's Recommended Decision are to the 
slip opinion as originally issued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Having reviewed the record in its entirety, including Respondent's 
Exceptions, I have decided to adopt the ALJ's recommended rulings, 
factual findings, legal conclusions and decision except as discussed 
below. A discussion of Respondent's Exceptions follows.

Respondent's Exceptions

    In his Exceptions, Respondent raises five main contentions. Having 
considered his Exceptions, and finding one of them to be of merit, I 
nonetheless conclude that the record supports the ALJ's recommended 
order of revocation.

Exception 1--Respondent's Violation of the Separate Registration 
Requirement Does Not Support the Revocation of His Registration

    The evidence shows that Respondent maintains a dental practice at 
two offices, which are located in Norwalk and Avon, Ohio, each of which 
is open two days a week. However, Respondent holds a registration only 
for the Norwalk office, even though the evidence shows that he 
routinely performs procedures, which require that he administer 
controlled substances to his patients, at both offices.
    Under 21 U.S.C. 822(e), ``[a] separate registration shall be 
required at each principal place of business or professional practice 
where the applicant manufactures, distributes, or dispenses controlled 
substances or list I chemicals.'' See also 21 CFR 1301.12(a). While, by 
regulation, DEA has exempted several categories of locations from the 
registration requirement, with respect to practitioners, the exemption 
is limited to ``[a]n office used by a practitioner * * * where 
controlled substances are prescribed but neither administered nor 
otherwise dispensed as a regular part of the professional practice of 
the practitioner at such office, and where no supplies of controlled 
substances are maintained.'' 21 CFR 1301.12(b)(3) (emphasis added).
    Respondent does not dispute that ``he dispensed controlled 
substances at his unregistered Avon office,'' Resp. Exc. at 11, and he 
admitted in his testimony that he had continued to do so up until the 
date of the hearing. Tr. 764-65. Respondent maintains, however, that 
upon being informed during the December 2009 DEA inspection that he 
could not store controlled substances at the Avon office, he 
discontinued storing controlled substances there. Resp. Exc. at 11. As 
for why he did not cease administering controlled substances at his 
Avon office, Respondent contends that he ``believed that the critical 
issue was where the controlled substances were `stored' as opposed to 
`administered.' '' Id. (quoting Tr. 764-65).
    To buttress the latter contention, Respondent cites the testimony 
of the Government's Expert witness, a D.D.S., whose practice is limited 
to providing intravenous (IV) sedation services for the patients of 
other dentists ``throughout the Dayton-Cincinnati area,'' as well as at 
a local hospital. GX 14; Tr. 23-24. In particular, Respondent notes 
that the Government's Expert testified that he has only one 
registration, and that he does not obtain registrations for the 
numerous offices of other dentists at which he provides anesthesia to 
patients. Tr. 103. Citing the Government's Expert testimony that he is 
an expert on the state and federal regulations pertaining to controlled 
substances, as well as that he also teaches IV sedation and the 
standards of the dental profession to other dental practitioners in 
Ohio, Respondent asserts that revoking his registration cannot be 
reconciled with the Expert's testimony that a registration is only 
necessary ``where you order your drugs, store your drugs and keep the 
records of disposal and usage.'' Tr. 103; Resp. Exc. at 13.
    While Respondent now concedes that both his belief and that of the 
Expert were mistaken, he contends that the Expert's testimony 
``support[s] the reasonableness of [his] mistake in fact relating to 
the regulatory requirements.'' \2\ Resp. Exc. at 13. According to 
Respondent, his violations of the CSA were the ``result of his 
confusion and apparent misunderstanding of the law.'' Id. However, 
Respondent then contends that ``it is difficult to comprehend a 
situation that would be more confusing to a respondent than to sit in a 
courtroom and hear testimony of the Government's expert advocating the 
very position for which [his] registration is in jeopardy.'' Id. at 13-
14. Thus, Respondent argues that the ALJ's findings that he 
``flagrantly'' violated the law and that he has failed to acknowledge 
wrongdoing and establish his future compliance are unsupported by the 
record and that the recommended sanction of revocation is unwarranted. 
Id. at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Of course, this is not a mistake of fact at all as 
Respondent then states that his violations were caused in part by 
his ``apparent misunderstanding of the law.'' Resp. Exc. 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The argument is not persuasive because the determination of the 
meaning of the CSA and Agency regulations is not within the proper role 
of expert witnesses. Rather, it is a function vested in the Agency and 
the Federal Courts. See Chevron v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Most 
importantly, Respondent cannot credibly claim to have been confused as 
to the requirement that he obtain a separate registration for his Avon 
practice as both the Act itself and its implementing regulations 
provide clear notice as to what is required. See United States v. 
Clinical Leasing Serv., Inc., 925 F.2d 120, 123 (5th Cir. 1991) (``A 
physician of ordinary means and intelligence would understand that the 
federal registration provisions apply to each important or 
consequential place of business where the physician distribute 
controlled substances. It is sufficiently clear that the application of 
the provisions is not limited to a single important or consequential 
place of business where controlled substances are distributed.'').
    As set forth above, the CSA's registration provision states in 
relevant part that ``[a] separate registration shall be required at 
each principal place of business or professional practice where the 
applicant manufactures, distributes, or dispenses controlled 
substances.'' 21 U.S.C. 822(e) (emphasis added). Likewise, the CSA 
defines the term dispense to ``mean[] to deliver a controlled 
substances to an ultimate user * * * by * * * a practitioner, including 
the * * * administering of a controlled substance.'' Id. Sec.  802(10). 
Thus, the statute provides clear notice that it is the activity of 
dispensing, which includes the administration of controlled substances, 
itself, which triggers the requirement, in the case of a practitioner, 
of obtaining a separate registration for a principal place of 
professional practice. See 21 U.S.C. 822(e). And to similar effect, the 
text of 21 CFR 1301.12(b)(3), which uses the conjunction ``and,'' makes 
clear that the exemption from registration for a practitioner's office 
obtains only when

[[Page 72388]]

two conditions are met: (1) That the practitioner only engages in the 
prescribing of controlled substances and ``neither administer[s] nor 
otherwise dispense[s]'' at the office, and (2) that the practitioner 
does not maintain any supplies of controlled substances at the office.
    To the extent Respondent suggests that the Expert's testimony 
establishes that there is widespread confusion among practitioners as 
to the scope of the registration requirements, the argument is 
unavailing. The clarity of the Act and the Agency's regulations is not 
determined by whether there are even a substantial number of members of 
the dental profession in Ohio who are confused as to the scope of the 
registration requirements. Rather, it is determined by assessing 
whether the text of the Act and regulations provide fair notice such 
that a person of ordinary intelligence can understand when a separate 
registration is required. See FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 132 
S.Ct. 2307, 2310 (2012) (quoting United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 
285, 304 (2008)). The Act and regulations pass this test with flying 
colors.
    There is likewise no merit to Respondent's contention that the 
Government's position is ``irreconcilable'' with the Expert's 
acknowledgement that he does not hold registrations at each of the 
numerous offices where he administers controlled substances. Resp. Exc. 
at 12-13. The CSA's registration requirement applies only to ``each 
principal place of * * * professional practice * * * where controlled 
substances are * * * dispensed by a person.'' 21 CFR 1301.12(a) 
(emphasis added). While the record establishes that the Government's 
Expert travels to numerous offices of other dentists to provide 
anesthesia services for their patients, he does so on an apparently as-
needed and random basis, and there is no evidence that he maintains a 
place of professional practice, let alone a principal one, at any of 
these locations. Nor is there any evidence as to whether the dentists 
who call on him to provide anesthesia to their patients themselves have 
DEA registrations. See 21 CFR 1301.22(b).
    By contrast, the evidence shows that Respondent maintains two 
offices, at which he regularly both sees and administers controlled 
substances in the course of treating patients. Notwithstanding that the 
word ``principal'' ordinarily means the ``most important, 
consequential, or influential,'' Webster's Third New International 
Dictionary 1802 (1993), or the ``main, prominent'' or ``leading,'' see 
Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 130 S.Ct. 1181, 1192 (2010) (quoting 12 Oxford 
English Dictionary 495 (2d ed. 1989)), by inserting the word ``each'' 
into the statutory text, Congress clearly was aware that practitioners 
frequently maintain multiple places of professional practice and 
manifested its intent that such an office be registered if the 
practitioner administers controlled substances at the location. Any 
other interpretation would undermine Congress' purpose of requiring 
registration to ensure that those locations at which controlled 
substance activities take place have adequate security and procedures 
in place to prevent the diversion of drugs from their legitimate use.
    Nor is there any merit to Respondent's contention that the ALJ 
erred in finding that he ``flagrantly'' violated the registration 
provision. Resp. Exc. at 14. Even if at the time of the December 2009 
inspection, the Agency's Investigator told him only that he could not 
store controlled substances at his Avon office and did not mention that 
he was also prohibited from administering drugs at this location 
because it was not registered, subsequently, the Show Cause Order 
specifically cited 21 CFR 1301.12, the provision which makes plain that 
he was required to hold a registration at this Office. ALJ Ex. 1, at 2. 
Moreover, in its Pre-Hearing Statement, the Government provided notice 
that it intended to establish that Respondent's Avon office ``is not 
registered with DEA to handle controlled substances[,]'' and that ``DEA 
learned that Respondent administered controlled substances to patients 
from his Avon dental practice.'' ALJ Ex. 5, at 7. Yet even after being 
provided with notice that the Government was alleging that he was in 
violation of the registration provision, Respondent acknowledged that 
he had administered controlled substances at his Avon office as 
recently as the week before the hearing. Tr. 764-65. This is more than 
enough to establish that Respondent flagrantly violated the statute, 
and in the absence of mitigating evidence, it is sufficiently egregious 
to support the revocation of his registration.

Exception 2--Respondent's Violation of 21 CFR 1301.75(b) Does Not 
Support the Revocation of His Registration

    Respondent also argues that the evidence pertaining to the storage 
of controlled substances at his Avon location in violation of 21 CFR 
1301.75 does not ``reflect an intentional disregard for security,'' and 
that the ALJ ignored evidence of steps he took to comply when the 
adequacy of security was questioned by a State Board Inspector. Resp. 
Exc. at 17. However, while the ALJ found that Respondent violated 21 
CFR 1301.75(b) by leaving controlled substances (unattended) in open 
storage bins in the sterilization room at the Avon office (rather than 
keeping them in a securely-locked and substantially-constructed 
cabinet), there is also credible evidence that Respondent had changed 
his storage practices at the time of the December 2009 DEA inspection 
and that he was then in compliance with the above regulation. See Tr. 
595. The ALJ did not, however, discuss this evidence in his decision. 
Had Respondent's violations of 21 CFR 1301.75 been the only allegations 
sustained on the record, they would not support the sanction 
recommended by the ALJ. However, as explained above, they are not the 
only violations proved.

Exception 3--The Provisions of 21 CFR 1307.21(a) Are Not Mandatory, Are 
Void for Vagueness, and Are Inapplicable in Light of State Regulation

    As noted above, the record shows that Respondent administered 
controlled substances intravenously to patients and that he disposed of 
the excess drug by squirting it down the sink. Respondent did not, 
however, notify the Agency of this practice and did not complete DEA 
Form 41 for these disposals.\3\ The Government thus alleges that 
Respondent violated 21 CFR 1307.21(a), because he ``did not provide 
prior notification to DEA of such disposal as required by'' this 
regulation. ALJ Ex. 1, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Other evidence of record relevant to the issue includes an 
affidavit of Dr. Joel Weaver, a dentist anesthesiologist and 
Professor Emeritus at The Ohio State University Medical Center, who 
has practiced for thirty-five years. RX J, at 1. In his affidavit, 
Dr. Weaver stated that ``[t]he standard practice among dentists in 
Ohio and most likely in most states is for the dentist to log the 
dose of the drug taken from his inventory, record the dose given to 
the patient in the patient sedation/anesthesia record and record any 
`wasted' dose in either the drug log, the patient's record or both 
as soon as the case is concluded.'' Id. at 2. He also explained that 
``[t]he `wasted' drug is typically squirted into the sink * * *, 
into the trash or sharps container, or into the soil of potted 
plants as a source of nitrogen-containing fertilizer.'' Id.
    According to Dr. Weaver, in titrating the dose of sedation for 
each patient, ``there is often some amount of drug remaining in 
syringes since the dose is individualized for each patient and [the] 
length of the operation[,] and cannot be predicted.'' Id. He then 
explained that ``[t]he safest and most convenient method of 
disposing of these drugs is immediate disposal and then placing the 
contaminated syringes in a sharps container.'' Id. Dr. Weaver 
further stated that in Ohio alone, there are approximately 500 
dentists who are licensed to perform intravenous sedation and that 
each of these physicians could perform twenty sedation procedures 
each day for a total of 10,000 procedures each day. Id.

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

[[Page 72389]]

    While Respondent admits that he disposed of controlled substances 
in this manner, he argues that the regulation does not set forth 
mandatory procedures for disposing of controlled substances. Resp. Exc. 
at 18-19. Alternatively, he argues that the regulation ``is void for 
vagueness,'' id. at 19, and that the regulation, when coupled with the 
instructions provided on DEA Form 41, create ``an alarming morass of 
confusion'' as to what it requires. Id. at 21. As support for his 
contention, Respondent points to the testimony of the Government's 
Expert that, he too, disposes of a drug, in excess of what he 
administered to a patient, by squirting it down the sink, and does so 
without obtaining permission from the Agency. Id. at 22-23. Respondent 
further points to the testimony of an Agency Investigator that ``a 
large portion'' of the practices he has inspected dispose of excess 
drugs by squirting them into either the sink or toilet.\4\ Id. at 24 
(quoting Tr. 631).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Respondent also contends that the regulation ``is 
inapplicable in light of'' an Ohio Board of Pharmacy regulation 
governing the disposal of controlled substances. Id. at 24-25. In 
light of my disposition of this Exception, I conclude that it is not 
necessary to address this contention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Responding to Respondent's contention that the regulation does not 
provide fair notice, the Government argues that the various cases he 
relies on ``are applicable to criminal or civil proceeding[s], but 
inapplicable to regulated persons subject to the licensing requirement 
set forth by an administrative agency or provision of the 
Administrative Procedures [sic] Act.'' Gov. Resp. to Exceptions, at 6-
7. However, contrary to the Government's understanding, just last term 
the Supreme Court invalidated an FCC order finding various broadcasters 
liable for violating that Agency's indecency policy, because the FCC 
failed to provide fair notice that their conduct would be deemed a 
violation. FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 132 S.Ct. 2307 (2012). 
In FCC v. Fox, the Court reiterated that the ``requirement of clarity 
in regulation is essential to the protections provided by the Due 
Process Clause,'' and that a ``punishment fails to comply with due 
process if the statute or regulation under which it is obtained `fails 
to provide a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is 
prohibited, or is so standardless that it authorizes or encourages 
seriously discriminatory enforcement.' '' Id. (quoting United States v. 
Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 304 (2008)).
    While FCC v. Fox involved the imposition of a monetary penalty, it 
hardly broke new ground. See General Electric Co. v. EPA, 53 F.3d 1324, 
1328-29 (D.C. Cir. 1995); Diamond Roofing Co. v. OSHRC, 528 F.2d 645, 
649 (5th Cir. 1976) Nor is there any no doubt that the Government's 
obligation to provide ``fair notice'' of what conduct is prohibited 
applies to licensing proceedings as well. Indeed, this has been the law 
for more than forty years. See Trinity Broadcasting of Florida, Inc., 
v. FCC, 211 F.3d 618, 628 (D.C. Cir. 2000); Radio Athens, Inc., v. FCC, 
401 F.2d 398, 404 (D.C. Cir. 1968). Thus, in Trinity Broadcasting, the 
D.C. Circuit recognized that the denial of an application to renew a 
license is ``a severe penalty,'' and ``held that `in the absence of 
notice--for example, where the regulation is not sufficiently clear to 
warn a party about what is expected of it--an agency may not deprive a 
party of property by imposing civil or criminal liability.' '' Id. 
(quoting G.E. v. EPA, 53 F.3d at 1328-29). Accordingly, if the 
regulation (or other pronouncements interpreting it) do not provide 
``fair notice'' of what is required, Respondent cannot be deemed to 
have violated it.
    The starting point for resolving these contentions is, of course, 
the language of the regulation. The regulation, which was one of the 
original regulations promulgated by DEA's predecessor, the Bureau of 
Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, see 36 FR 7802 (1971) (then codified at 
21 CFR 307.21), provides, in relevant part, that:

    (a) Any person in possession of any controlled substance and 
desiring or required to dispose of such substance may request 
assistance from the Special Agent in Charge of the Administration in 
the area in which the person is located for authority and 
instructions to dispose of such substance. The request should be 
made as follows:
    (1) If the person is a registrant, he/she shall list the 
controlled substance or substances which he/she desires to dispose 
of on DEA Form 41, and submit three copies of that form to the 
Special Agent in Charge in his/her area[.]

21 CFR 1307.21(a) (emphasis added).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The regulation also provides that:
    (b) The Special Agent in Charge shall authorize and instruct the 
applicant to dispose of the controlled substance in one of the 
following manners:
    (1) By transfer to person registered under the Act and 
authorized to possess the substance;
    (2) By delivery to an agent of the Administration or to the 
nearest office of the Administration;
    (3) By destruction in the presence of an agent of the 
Administration or other authorized person; or
    (4) By such other means as the Special Agent in Charge may 
determine to assure that the substance does not become available to 
unauthorized persons.
     21 CFR 1307.21(b). In addition, subsection c of the regulation 
provides that:
    [i]n the event that a registrant is regularly required to 
dispose of controlled substances, the Special Agent in Charge may 
authorize the registrant to dispose of such substances, in 
accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, without prior 
approval of the Administration in each instance, on the condition 
that the registrant keep records of such disposals and file periodic 
reports with the Special Agent In Charge summarizing the disposals 
made by the registrant.
    Id. Sec.  1307.21(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ALJ rejected Respondent's contention that the regulation does 
not impose a mandatory requirement of notification, reasoning that its 
language ``[n]ecessarily * * * implies that a person who does not 
request assistance to dispose of a controlled substance does not have 
authority to dispose of such substance. This is a classic example of 
permissive language which `plainly carr[ies] a restrictive meaning.' '' 
Order Regarding Respondent's Multiple Motions For Appropriate Relief 
(ALJ Ex. 25), at 10 (quoting Forest Grove School Dist. v. T.A., 557 
U.S. 230, 254 n.1 (2009) (Souter, J., dissenting)). The ALJ further 
reasoned that ``[u]nder a plain reading of the regulation, a registrant 
is not required to dispose of controlled substances, but once he or she 
elects to do so, such disposal may not be made without authorization 
from the specified DEA official.'' Id. at 11.
    I conclude, however, that the regulation's text does not provide 
sufficient clarity to conclude that it provides a mandatory procedure 
which must be followed in all instances in which a person seeks to 
dispose of a controlled substance rather than simply a mechanism by 
which a person who requires assistance to dispose of a controlled 
substance can obtain such assistance. Moreover, while the ALJ's 
interpretation might be permissible, it rests on the unsupported 
premise that authority must always be obtained to lawfully dispose of a 
controlled substance. However, neither the Government, nor the ALJ, 
undertook to analyze the CSA and explain why this conclusion is 
required.
    Significantly, unlike most (if not all) other DEA regulations which 
are indisputably mandatory, the relevant text uses the word ``may'' 
rather than ``shall'' to modify the words ``request assistance.'' As 
the Supreme Court has explained, ``[t]he word `may' customarily 
connotes discretion,'' and this is particularly true where, as here, an 
enactment also uses the word ``shall.'' Jama v. ICE, 543 U.S. 335, 346 
(2005). Likewise, the phrase's use of the words ``request assistance'' 
rather than ``request authority,'' notwithstanding that obtaining 
authority may well be the ultimate purpose of the procedure provided in 
the regulation (at least in

[[Page 72390]]

some cases), is hardly the language of a mandatory requirement or 
command.
    Thus, while on its face, section 1307.21(a) is broad in scope as it 
applies to all persons (and not only registrants) as well as all means 
of disposal, it is far from clear why a person, like Respondent, who 
disposes of a controlled substance by squirting or flushing it down the 
drain, would necessarily need any assistance to do so. Nor, even 
assuming that there are circumstances in which a person is required to 
obtain authority from DEA to dispose of a controlled substance (i.e., 
because the person lacks authority to distribute the drug to another), 
is it clear why a person, who disposes of a controlled substance in the 
manner Respondent did, requires authority from DEA to do so. Thus, 
while it is clearly reasonable to construe the regulation as providing 
a mandatory procedure for disposing of controlled substances where a 
person must distribute the controlled substances to another person--
because other provisions of the CSA make clear that a person cannot 
lawfully distribute a controlled substance without the required 
registration--that does not mean that the regulation provides fair 
notice that it is mandatory when applied to other circumstances.
    Indeed, the regulation's use of the word ``may'' rather than 
``shall'' itself suggests that there are circumstances in which 
authority from DEA is not required to dispose of a controlled 
substance.\6\ So too, that the regulation ``shall not be construed as 
affecting or altering in any way the disposal of controlled substances 
through procedures provided in laws and regulations adopted by any 
State,'' 21 CFR 1307.21(d), raises the question of whether its 
procedures are still mandatory if one disposes of controlled substance 
in compliance with state law (and thus has authority) without engaging 
in a distribution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The regulation's use of the permissive word ``may'' cannot 
be reasonably attributed to the fact that the regulation provides a 
procedure that applies whether a person is merely ``desiring * * * 
to dispose of a controlled substance,'' or is ``required to dispose 
of a controlled substance.'' 21 CFR 1307.21(a) (emphasis added). 
Surely, no one ``desiring * * * to dispose of a controlled 
substance'' would object if the regulation stated that he ``shall 
request assistance'' to do so. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its pleadings, the Government acknowledges that ``the 
administrative case law is relatively silent on the requirements of a 
registrant under 21 CFR 1307.21.'' Gov. Resp. to Respondent's Motion to 
Exclude Paragraph 7 of the Order to Show Cause (ALJ Ex. 17), at 2. 
Indeed, while this regulation has been in existence for more than forty 
years, the Government points to no case in which a person, whether a 
practitioner or ultimate user, has been either criminally or 
administratively prosecuted for destroying a controlled substance, 
without notifying the Agency, which he/she lawfully possessed and 
retained possession of during the destruction process.\7\ Nor does the 
Government cite to either an interpretive rule or guidance document it 
has issued explaining that this regulation requires all persons, 
including practitioners, to first obtain authority from the Agency 
before they destroy a controlled substance of which they retain 
possession.\8\ Finally, even in this litigation, the Government does 
not explain why a person, who destroys controlled substances which they 
lawfully possess and which they do not distribute to another, 
nonetheless requires either ``assistance'' or ``authority'' to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The only case cited by the Government involved an entity, 
which was ``in the business of receiving salvage or undeliverable 
merchandise from common carriers,'' and which sought a DEA 
registration as a distributor. Associated Pharmaceutical Group, 
Inc., 58 FR 58181 (1993). Notably, the entity was unregistered and 
could not lawfully possess controlled substances. Id. at 58183. The 
Order's brief discussion of 21 CFR 1307.21 simply recounted the 
advice given the entity by a DEA Investigator that the regulation 
``requires that it seek DEA authorization for disposal or 
destruction of controlled substances that it was retaining in its 
possession,'' id. at 58181, as well as in a letter which advised it 
``that all unclaimed controlled substances in [its] possession would 
have to be disposed of according to 21 CFR 1307.21.'' Id. at 58182.
    \8\ At the time of the regulation's promulgation, DEA did not 
recognize reverse distributors as a category of registrant and the 
regulations only authorized a person to distribute (without being 
registered to distribute) ``that substance to the person from whom 
he obtained it or to the manufacturer of the substance.'' 21 CFR 
307.12 (1971).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notably, the CSA itself contains no provision explicitly 
prohibiting or regulating (other than through recordkeeping) the 
destruction of controlled substances. Moreover, in enacting the Secure 
and Responsible Drug Disposal Act of 2010, which amended the CSA, 
Congress found that ``take-back programs often cannot dispose of the * 
* * controlled substance medications * * * because Federal law does not 
permit take-back programs to accept controlled substances unless they 
get specific permission from [DEA] and arrange for full-time law 
enforcement officers to receive the controlled substances directly from 
the member of the public who seeks to dispose of them.'' Secure and 
Responsible Drug Disposal Act of 2010, Public Law 111-273, Sec.  
2(4)(B), 124 Stat. 2858, 2859 (2010). Yet Congress further found that:

    Individuals seeking to reduce the amount of unwanted controlled 
substances in their household consequently have few disposal options 
beyond discarding or flushing the substances which may not be 
appropriate means of disposing of such substances. Drug take-back 
programs are also a convenient and effective means for individuals 
in various communities to reduce the introduction of some 
potentially harmful substances into the environment, particularly 
into water.

Id. Sec.  2(4)(C). Of significance, while Congress noted the lack of 
legal authority for take-back programs to accept controlled substances 
without Agency permission, it made no similar observation that those 
individuals who dispose of their controlled substances by discarding or 
flushing them also lack legal authority to do so.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Consistent with this understanding, in several other 
pronouncements, including guidelines developed by the FDA in 
conjunction with the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), 
which discuss the proper method of disposing of prescription drugs 
including controlled substances, not once has the Federal Government 
explained that a person must first obtain permission from DEA to 
dispose of a controlled substance if he destroys it himself. See 
ONDCP, Epidemic: Responding to America's Prescription Drug Abuse 
Crisis 7-8 (2011). Moreover, while the Guidelines instruct that 
drugs should be flushed ``down the toilet only if the accompanying 
patient information specifically instructs it is safe to do so,'' 
ONDCP, Press Release, Federal Government Issues New Guidelines For 
Proper Disposal of Prescription Drugs (Feb. 20, 2007), the FDA has 
determined, with respect to a number of controlled substances, that 
flushing them down the toilet or sink is appropriate and that ``any 
potential risk to people and the environment from flushing [these 
drugs] is outweighed by the real possibility of life-threatening 
risks from accidental ingestion of these medicines.'' U.S. Food and 
Drug Administration, Disposal of Unused Medicines: What You Should 
Know 1 (Jan. 2012). See also U.S. Food and Drug Administration, How 
to Dispose of Unused Medicines 2 (April 2011) (noting that the 
disposal instructions on some drugs may contain ``instructions to 
flush down the toilet, * * * because FDA * * * has determined this 
method to be the most appropriate route of disposal that presents 
the least risk to safety'' and that ``[d]rugs such as powerful 
narcotic pain relievers and other controlled substances carry 
instruction for flushing to reduce the danger of unintentional use 
or overdose and illegal abuse'').
     To make clear, whether flushing the drugs which Respondent used 
in the procedures he performed creates environmental harms is an 
issue for other agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To be sure, because of their role in the closed system of 
distribution, the CSA imposes requirements on registrants which are not 
imposed on ultimate users, and the Act generally limits the authorized 
activities of practitioners to the dispensing of controlled substances 
and prohibits them from distributing a controlled substance. Yet the 
Government offers no argument that squirting the small amount of excess 
medication, which has been drawn into a syringe but not administered to 
a patient, into a sink or toilet and flushing it, constitutes a 
distribution within the

[[Page 72391]]

meaning of the CSA, or is otherwise prohibited by the Act.\10\ Indeed, 
disposing of the excess amount of a controlled substance, pursuant to 
the administration of the drug to a patient in the course of 
professional practice and in this manner, would seem to be a necessary 
incident of administering the drug and within the scope of a 
practitioner's authorized activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ To further demonstrate the lack of clear notice provided by 
the Government's proposed reading of the regulations, apparently 
even if a registrant wants to distribute a controlled substance to a 
reverse distributor, it must request authority to do so under 21 CFR 
1307.21(a). Yet under a separate regulation, a practitioner is 
authorized to ``distribute (without being registered to 
distribute)'' a controlled substance to ``[a] reverse distributor 
who is registered to receive such controlled substances.'' 21 CFR 
1307.11(a). Thus, this provision would seem to grant authority to a 
practitioner to dispose of his excess controlled substances by 
shipping them to a reverse distributor who destroys them. However, 
no guidance from the Agency explains whether a practitioner who 
disposes of his controlled substances in this manner (and who 
seemingly has been granted authority by this regulation to do so) is 
nonetheless required to comply with section 1307.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I therefore conclude that the use of the phrase ``may request 
assistance'' in the relevant language of the regulation creates an 
ambiguity as to whether it is permissive or mandatory in all instances 
in which a person disposes of a controlled substance. Because the 
Government points to no provision of the CSA which prohibits this 
method of disposal or otherwise requires that a practitioner obtain 
authority to dispose of controlled substances in all circumstances, and 
because notwithstanding that the regulation has been in existence for 
more than forty years, the Government has not published any 
administrative interpretation holding that disposal in this manner 
violates the Act or requires authority from the Agency, I hold that the 
Government has not provided fair notice that Respondent's conduct was 
prohibited.\11\ Accordingly, this conduct cannot be used as a basis for 
finding a violation of the CSA.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ My holding that the regulation is ambiguous as applied to 
practitioners engaged in this manner of disposal does not preclude 
the Agency from issuing an interpretative rule clearly explaining 
the scope of the regulation and attempting to provide a reasoned 
basis for applying the regulation to this conduct.
    \12\ The ALJ also noted that even after Respondent was advised 
by the Agency's Investigator that he was in violation of 21 CFR 
1307.21, he continued to engage in the same conduct. While this 
conduct is disturbing, I do not rely on it given the absence of any 
published order, interpretive rule, or guidance document holding or 
explaining that the Agency deems such conduct to be a violation. In 
any event, given the evidence that Respondent continued to violate 
the registration requirement and did so even after being served with 
the Show Cause Order, this conduct is, by itself, sufficiently 
egregious to support the revocation of his registration.
     The Government also argues that Respondent's contention that 
the regulation does not provide fair notice should be rejected 
because he did not seek ``agency guidance regarding the issue.'' 
Gov. Resp. to Exceptions at 7. Contrary to the Government's 
understanding, the Due Process Clause places the burden on the 
Government to provide fair notice of what its regulation requires 
and not on Respondent to seek clarification of the regulation's 
ambiguity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exception 4--The ALJ's Recommended Decision Is Arbitrary and Capricious 
and Unsupported By Law

    Respondent also takes exception to the ALJ's factual findings, 
legal conclusions, and recommended sanction, contending that they are 
``arbitrary, capricious and unsupported by law.'' Resp. Exc. at 27. 
However, with the exception of the ALJ's legal conclusions pertaining 
to the alleged violations of 21 CFR 1307.21, I find that the ALJ's 
findings of fact and legal conclusions are supported by substantial 
evidence. Based on the ALJ's findings that: (1) Respondent violated the 
separate registration requirement by failing to register his Avon 
practice, notwithstanding that he regularly administered controlled 
substances at this office, see ALJ at 37; (2) even after he was on 
notice that he was in violation of this provision, he continued to 
violate the Act and was still doing so the week before the hearing, see 
id. (citing Tr. 660 & 764); (3) Respondent failed to maintain proper 
records in that he was missing purchase records as well as order forms 
(DEA 222) for the schedule II controlled substances he purchased, see 
id. at 39-40; and (4) Respondent failed to properly secure the 
controlled substance he took to his Avon office, see id. at 38-39; I 
conclude that the ALJ's finding that Respondent has committed acts 
which render his registration inconsistent with the public interest is 
supported by substantial evidence and that the Government has satisfied 
its prima facie burden. See id.
    While I acknowledge that Respondent produced evidence that he has 
changed his storage practices at his Avon office, he has offered no 
evidence that he has applied for a registration for the Avon office, 
nor provided any evidence to support a finding that he has addressed 
the serious recordkeeping violations proven on this record. Moreover, 
even to this day, Respondent does not accept responsibility for his 
violations of the registration requirement; instead, he argues--
notwithstanding that the Agency's regulation is clear on its face--that 
because others violate the same regulation, his violations should be 
excused. Exacerbating this violation, Respondent continued to 
administer controlled substance at his Avon office in violation of the 
registration requirement even after being told by the DI that he was in 
violation and even after being served with the Show Cause Order. 
Accordingly, I agree with the ALJ's conclusion that Respondent has not 
rebutted the Government's prima facie case and will order that 
Respondent's registration be revoked and that any pending applications 
be denied.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ I have considered Respondent's contention that the 
recommended sanction ``is a significant departure from prior agency 
decisions and * * * is without justification in fact.'' Resp. Exc. 
at 29. However, as the ALJ explained, in Daniel Koller, 71 FR 66975 
(2006), I revoked the registration of a practitioner who engaged in 
similar misconduct. ALJ at 44. In his Exceptions, Respondent totally 
ignores Koller. Accordingly, I reject Respondent's Exception.
    Respondent also contends that because an Agency Investigator 
approved his application for a Milwaukee registration when she knew 
that another Agency Investigator had requested the issuance of an 
Order to Show Cause, the Agency has ``voluntarily and 
intentionally'' waived its right to revoke his Milwaukee 
registration. Resp. Exc., at 25-26. Respondent, however, produced no 
evidence that he entered into an agreement with the Agency pursuant 
to which the Agency agreed that it would not seek to revoke this 
registration. In addition, even if the Investigator's decision to 
approve his registration was deemed to constitute a voluntary and 
intentional act of waiver (itself a dubious conclusion), DEA has not 
delegated the authority to waive prosecution to field investigators. 
See 28 CFR 0.104. Rather, that authority remains vested in the 
Deputy Assistant Administrator of the Office of Diversion Control. I 
thus reject the contention. It is further noted that Respondent does 
not claim that the Government is estopped from proceeding against 
his Milwaukee registration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Certificates of 
Registration Numbers FB2238865 and BB0569775, issued to Jeffery J. 
Becker, D.D.S., be, and they hereby are, revoked. I further order that 
any pending application of Jeffery J. Becker, D.D.S., to renew or 
modify any of the above registrations, be, and it hereby is, denied. 
This Order is effective January 4, 2013.

    Dated: November 16, 2012.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Administrator.
Robert Walker, Esq., for the Government
Frank Recker, Esq., & Todd Newkirk, Esq., for the Respondent

Recommended Rulings, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision 
of the Administrative Law Judge

    Chief Administrative Law Judge John J. Mulrooney, II. On July 28, 
2011, the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the Drug Enforcement 
Administration (DEA or Government), issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) 
seeking the revocation of DEA Certificates of

[[Page 72392]]

Registration (COR), Number BB0569775,\1\ and Number FB2238865,\2\ of 
Jeffrey J. Becker, D.D.S. (Respondent), as a practitioner, pursuant to 
21 U.S.C. 824(a) (2006 & Supp. III 2010), and denial of a pending 
application for renewal of Respondent's DEA COR, Number BB0569775, 
pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f) (2006). The OSC alleges that the 
Respondent's continued enjoyment of the privileges vested in his COR 
registrations is inconsistent with the public interest, as that term is 
used in 21 U.S.C. 823(f). On August 25, 2011, the Respondent, through 
counsel, timely requested a hearing, which was conducted in Arlington, 
Virginia on November 8-9, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The registered address under this registration is in 
Norwalk, Ohio. Gov't Ex. 1.
    \2\ The registered address under this registration is in 
Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Gov't Ex. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The issue ultimately to be adjudicated by the Administrator, with 
the assistance of this recommended decision, is whether the record as a 
whole establishes, by substantial evidence, that the Respondent's CORs 
should be revoked \3\ as inconsistent with the public interest, as that 
term is used in 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Respondent has timely submitted an application for 
renewal of COR BB0569775 (Norwalk) which was scheduled to 
expire under its own terms on July 31, 2011. Thus, by operation of 
law, this COR has been extended and remains in full force and effect 
until a final Agency order is issued in this case. 5 U.S.C. 558(c); 
21 CFR 1301.36(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After carefully considering the testimony elicited at the hearing, 
the admitted exhibits, the arguments of counsel, and the record as a 
whole, I have set forth my recommended findings of fact and conclusions 
of law below.

The Allegations

    The OSC issued by the Government contends that revocation of the 
Respondent's CORs is appropriate because: (1) The Respondent has 
practiced dentistry from a location in Avon, Ohio without obtaining a 
DEA COR to handle controlled substances at that location; \4\ (2) the 
Respondent ``maintained * * * controlled substances at an unregistered 
[location] in violation [of] 21 U.S.C. 822(e);'' (3) the Respondent 
``maintained controlled substances in an unsecured area in violation of 
21 CFR Sec.  1301.75(b);'' (4) ``sometime in 2009 [the Respondent] 
distributed controlled substances * * * to an unregistered location in 
violation of 21 CFR Sec.  1307.11;'' (5) an accountability audit of the 
Respondent's ``handling of fentanyl, diazepam and midazolam * * * 
revealed shortages of fentanyl and midazolam and an overage of 
diazepam;'' and (6) the Respondent disposed of controlled substances 
but ``did not provide prior notification to DEA of such disposal as 
required by 21 CFR Sec.  1307.21(a).'' ALJ Ex. 1 at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This allegation does not aver that controlled substances are 
maintained, administered or dispensed at the Avon office. See 21 CFR 
1301.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Stipulations of Fact

    The Government and the Respondent, through counsel, have entered 
into stipulations regarding the following matters:
    (1) The Respondent is registered with DEA as a practitioner in 
Schedules II-V under DEA registration number BB0569775 at 282 Benedict 
Avenue, Suite C, Box 22, Norwalk, Ohio 44857. While this registration 
reflects an expiration date of July 31, 2011, the Respondent timely 
submitted an application for renewal of registration on June 3, 2011.
    (2) The Respondent is also registered with DEA as a practitioner in 
Schedules II-V under DEA registration number FB2238865 at Affordable 
Care, 6015 West Forest Home Avenue, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53220. This 
registration expires by its terms on July 31, 2013.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Respondent makes much of the granting of the Milwaukee 
registration, arguing that ``[i]f the DEA felt that the Respondent's 
continued registration was inconsistent with the public interest, 
they could have * * * at least denied the Respondent's application 
for his Wisconsin registration.'' Resp't Posth'g Brf., at 18. It is 
unclear on what legal authority this contention rests, but the DEA 
has considered the application of waiver in situations where, as 
here, the agency granted and then sought to revoke a license based 
on information available at the time the license was granted. James 
Dell Potter, M.D., 49 FR 9970, 9971 (1984). In Potter, the DEA 
granted a license to the Respondent, notwithstanding information on 
the application referencing a felony conviction. Sometime later, the 
Agency rejected the respondent's argument that the granting of the 
application waived the Agency's right to seek revocation, holding 
that the doctrine of waiver requires a ``voluntary and intentional 
abandonment of known right.'' Thus, where the granting of a license 
is ``inadvertent and * * * unintentional[,]'' there can be no 
waiver. Here, as in Potter, there is no evidence that would support 
an election by the Agency to voluntarily and intentionally abandon a 
known right. Accordingly, application of waiver is unwarranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Fentanyl is a Schedule II controlled substance pursuant to 21 
CFR 1308.12(c)(9) (2011).
    (4) Diazepam is a Schedule IV controlled substance pursuant to 21 
CFR 1308.14(c)(14) (2011).
    (5) Lorazepam is a Schedule IV controlled substance pursuant to 21 
CFR 1308.14(c)(28) (2011).
    (6) Versed is a brand name for a product containing midazolam, a 
Schedule IV controlled substance pursuant to 21 CFR 1308.14(c)(35) 
(2011).

The Evidence

    The Government presented the testimony of Diversion Investigator 
(DI) Scott Brinks. Tr 428. DI Brinks testified that he has been 
employed as a DI in the Cleveland, Ohio, field office for just over ten 
years, Tr. 429, and that, during this time, he has been a part of at 
least a hundred investigations relating to practitioners. Tr. 431.
    DI Brinks testified that, sometime prior to December of 2009, he 
was contacted by Investigator Flugge of the Ohio Dental Board (Board), 
who informed DI Brinks that ``he had some drug related problems with 
[Respondent].'' Tr. 433. After the conversation with Investigator 
Flugge, DI Brinks ran a query on the Respondent in the ARCOS \6\ and 
RICS \7\ databases. Tr. 433-436. Although Brinks ascertained from the 
Internet that the Respondent maintained a practice in Avon, Ohio, the 
RICS database query did not indicate that the Respondent had a COR for 
the Avon location. Tr. 435-36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Automation of Reports and Consolidated Orders System 
(ARCOS) database tracks the course of distributions of controlled 
substances ``from the manufacturer down to the final seller.'' Tr. 
434.
    \7\ DI Brinks explained the RICS system maintains a wide variety 
of information on DEA registrants. Tr. 436.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the morning of December 21, 2009, DI Brinks met Investigator 
Flugge at a McDonalds across the street from the Respondent's practice 
in Norwalk, Ohio. Tr. 432. At this meeting, Investigator Flugge gave DI 
Brinks the Board's investigative file on the Respondent, including ``an 
anonymous complaint [and] a complaint by Rebecca Crockett.'' Tr. 433. 
Investigator Flugge also ``gave * * * a brief overview of the [the 
Board's] investigation and why he was referring [the matter].'' Tr. 
433. However, ``Investigator Flugge said he did not want to come along 
because of [the Respondent's] relationship with the [B]oard.'' Tr. 438. 
When asked to clarify this remark, DI Brinks explained Investigator 
Flugge's reluctance to join the investigation ``had to do with some 
hearing that [the] Respondent had went to.'' Tr. 438-40.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ DI Brinks reasonably explained that the motivation for the 
referral by Investigator Flugge did not matter to him because he 
``ha[d] an allegation of a controlled-substance-related problem, so 
[he was] required to investigate that.'' Tr. 439.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After meeting with Investigator Flugge, DI Brinks and a second DI 
drove across the street to the Respondent's office. Tr. 438. Upon 
entering the office, the DIs identified themselves, and presented the 
Respondent with a DEA Form 82, Notice of Inspection of Controlled 
Premises, which the

[[Page 72393]]

Respondent reviewed and signed.\9\ Tr. 438; Gov't Ex. 7. DI Brinks also 
requested that the Respondent provide ``all DEA Form 222s for the 
purchases of Schedule II controlled Substances, his purchase records 
for Schedule III-V [controlled substances, and] his dispensing records 
for Schedules II-V [controlled substances.]'' Tr. 442. DI Brinks also 
requested ``any DEA form 41s * * * Destruction of Controlled 
Substances, and any DEA Form 106, the Theft and Losses of Controlled 
Substances, and then [Respondent's biennial] inventory.'' Tr. 443. DI 
Brinks testified that, during their conversations,\10\ he found the 
Respondent to be ``very nervous and his hands were shaking.'' \11\ Tr. 
442, 624.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Inexplicably, despite the details he provided about his 
visit to the Respondent's office, when asked about his recollection 
of the event, DI Brinks stated that he could ``vaguely recall 
walking in there * * *.'' Tr. 590.
    \10\ DI Brinks indicated that no recording devices were employed 
during the inspection. Tr. 442, 594. The Respondent testified that 
he believed that his conversation with Brinks was recorded. Tr. 781-
82.
    \11\ On cross-examination DI Brinks conceded that, while other 
practitioners have appeared nervous during his investigations, he 
had ``not seen somebody shake like that in my experience.'' Tr. 624-
25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Respondent was able to produce only three controlled substance 
order forms (DEA Form 222) that related to a two-year period of 
practice, but even that modest number had one that did not contain all 
the information required. Tr. 444, 446-48, 639-40. When he realized he 
was unable to supply more than three Form 222s, the Respondent 
contacted his controlled substance supplier and had company purchase 
records faxed to his office for Brinks to review. Tr. 444, 638. The 
Respondent did provide his dispensing logs, Tr. 563, but no controlled 
substance destruction forms (DEA Form 41) or controlled substance 
theft/loss reports (DEA Form 106).\12\ Tr. 443, 448-49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Government's theory on noting the absence of theft/loss 
forms was rooted in its concept that its audit demonstrated losses 
that should have been noted by such documentation. As discussed in 
some detail, infra, the quality of the audit results presented by 
the Government in these proceedings renders the presence or absence 
of theft/loss forms largely irrelevant here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After using the forms provided to conduct an audit that Brinks 
characterized as ``extremely short on * * * midazolam and * * * 
fentanyl,'' the DIs asked the Respondent if he had a way of justifying 
the shortages. Tr. 451. The Respondent responded that he had records 
and controlled substances at an office in Avon. Tr. 451. After 
completing their inspection of the Norwalk Office, the DIs traveled to 
the Respondent's (unregistered) office at Avon, where they found 
additional files and three-fourths of a bottle of fentanyl.\13\ Tr. 
452.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Brinks testified that the Avon practice is not a location 
that is registered as a COR address that would be subject to an 
inspection, and accordingly, the DIs remained in the Respondent's 
waiting area, and were presented with the fentanyl and records by 
the Respondent after he went into the practice portion of the office 
by himself. Tr. 452-53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the inspection of the Respondent's dispensing logs, DI 
Brinks ``observed * * * that [Respondent] had provided large quantities 
of midazolam.'' Tr. 455.\14\ DI Brinks testified that he became 
concerned ``as soon as I started seeing 70 and * * * 100 [miligrams 
administered].'' \15\ Tr. 457. DI Brinks asked Peg Herner, a dental 
assistant at Respondent's office, about doses of the medication that 
the DI divined were excessive, and was told that ``I just write down 
what [the Respondent] tells me to write down.'' Tr. 456. After 
consulting with Ms. Herner, DI Brinks asked the Respondent about the 
midazolam prescribing, and the Respondent told him that the patients 
``build up a tolerance.'' Tr. 457-58. At some point during this 
conversation, DI Brinks questioned the Respondent about whether he was 
abusing controlled substances, and the Respondent twice volunteered to 
show the DIs his arms. Tr. 460, 621. When the Respondent pulled up the 
sleeves of his lab coat, DI Brinks observed three or four small ``poke 
marks'' on the left arm, but no bruising or scarring. Tr. 460-62. 
Respondent said that the marks were caused by dental students he 
allowed to practice IV techniques in a sedation class he taught at Case 
Western Reserve School of Dentistry on Fridays. Tr. 462. The following 
day, the DIs went to Case Western Reserve. Tr. 596. During their visit 
the DIs encountered the Respondent and, at the request of officials at 
the university,\16\ he invoked his right to an attorney. Tr. 596.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ DI Brinks clarified that ``I know from experience * * * 
what midazolam should be, what should be given before surgery.'' Tr. 
455.
    \15\ In his experience, DI Brinks had never ``seen anything 
close to 70 milligrams [administered] in one visit in one patient.'' 
Tr. 456-57.
    \16\ Tr. 707.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of his visit to the Respondent's practice, DI Brinks 
concluded that Respondent violated the DEA's regulations by failing to 
have a registration for his Avon Office. Tr. 640. DI Brinks also 
concluded that Respondent had violated DEA regulations by failing to 
maintain purchase records, and by failing to maintain accurate 
dispensing records. Tr. 639-40. It was Brinks' recollection that he 
informed the Respondent of ``some of the record keeping issues [and] 
the storing controlled substances at an unregistered location.'' Tr. 
597-598. Brinks characterized the Respondent as ``cooperative'' during 
the investigation. Tr. 603, 637.
    Brinks also discovered evidence that unused controlled substances 
that were left over in hypodermic needles at the conclusion of dental 
procedures conducted at the Respondent's practice were being disposed 
of by squirting them down the sink. Brinks explained that practitioners 
are not routinely provided with written guidance by the local DEA 
office on the issue of waste procedures authorized by the 
regulations,\17\ and although there are options for compliance 
(utilization of DEA-registered reverse distributors, Ohio Pharmacy 
Board assistance, and providing medications directly to DEA),\18\ ``a 
large portion'' of the practitioners he has inspected over the course 
of his career dispose of residual controlled substance medication from 
hypodermic needles by squirting it ``either down the sink or the 
toilet.'' Tr. 631.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Tr. 630.
    \18\ Tr. 630-33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During his testimony, DI Brinks attempted to explain the results of 
his drug audit. Apart from individual doses of medications reflected in 
the medication logs which, based on his experience, he concluded were 
high, Brinks' testimony regarding his audit was confusing, 
inconsistent, and unreliable. Brinks was unable to explain the data 
that he had collected and compiled. Brinks had processed his findings 
into a multicolor chart which he designed to compare the Respondent's 
levels of midazolam dispensing at his private practices with levels he 
dispensed at Case Western University School of Dentistry and the U.S. 
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommended maximum dosages. Tr. 
464-77. When the numbers on his proposed chart could not be reconciled 
with the raw data he claimed to have based it on, the witness 
acknowledged that he really had no idea what the chart (he created) 
signified.\19\ Tr. 475. The data in Brink's audit computation chart 
suffered from like blunders and was similarly excluded. Gov't Ex. 8 
(ID); Tr. 478-90. An overnight break in the proceedings afforded the DI 
the opportunity to make revisions on his initial, ill-fated computation 
chart,\20\ but there were issues with the revised version as well. 
Gov't Ex. 16; Tr. 583-

[[Page 72394]]

89, 610, 612-17. The DI's initial computation chart was ultimately 
received into evidence at the behest of the Respondent. Resp't Ex. M. 
Given the confusing nature of the Government's presentation and the 
surprise nature of its revised audit results (generated during the 
proceedings) the revised document, Gov't Ex. 16, was not considered to 
establish its purported results in these proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Inasmuch as a sufficient foundation for admission could not 
be established, the proposed exhibit was excluded from the record 
upon a timely, cogent and correct objection. Gov't Ex. 9 (ID).
    \20\ Tr. 488-90.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DI Brinks presented testimony that was detailed, plausible, and 
generally credible. Ironically, the candor with which this witness 
addressed some profound preparation errors actually enhanced his 
credibility, even to the extent that it compromised his testimony's 
effectiveness. The errata that marred the Government's evidence 
regarding the audit of the Respondent's practice, although certainly 
the product of self-inflicted wounds, did not bear the indicia of any 
form of intentional malice toward the Respondent. Interestingly 
however, they were clearly also not the result of a rush to justice. DI 
Brinks testified that, after completing his investigation sometime in 
March 2010, the investigation (and the collected data) lay dormant for 
sixteen (16) months until approximately July of 2011, when this matter 
was initiated.\21\ Tr. 599. During this time of investigative inaction, 
the Respondent applied for, and on September 14, 2010 received, the COR 
for his dental office in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Tr. 601; Gov't Exs. 2,3. 
That registration is also the subject of these proceedings. ALJ Ex. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Brinks testified that he was working on another 
investigation. Tr. 633-35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Government also presented the testimony of Lili C. Reitz, the 
Executive Director of the Ohio State Dental Board, the agency who 
referred this matter to DEA. Ms. Reitz holds a law degree from the 
Cleveland Marshall College of Law and formerly worked as an Assistant 
Attorney General with the Ohio Attorney General's Office.\22\ During 
her testimony, Ms. Reitz explained the permitting requirements for 
conscious sedation versus general anesthesia for dentists in Ohio, and 
testified that a records check she conducted informed that the 
Respondent possesses the former permit, but not the latter. Tr. 374-83, 
421.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Ms. Reitz's resume was received into evidence. Gov't Ex. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ms. Reitz also provided some background regarding the manner in 
which the Ohio Dental Board executes its mandate to investigate 
complaints of wrongdoing related to its licensed dentists. Tr. 384-85, 
388. Ms. Reitz testified that she supervises a 15-person office that 
investigates 500 to 1,000 complaints per year against the state's 7,000 
dentists. Id. Furthermore, Reitz discussed her agency's practice of 
sharing information with other law enforcement and regulatory 
authorities, including DEA. Tr. 390-91.
    Regarding the Respondent, Ms. Reitz testified to the results of the 
Ohio Dental Board's investigation into Respondent's practice that 
commenced upon the receipt of an anonymous complaint alleging that the 
Respondent was using controlled substances from his practice at 
home.\23\ Tr. 397-399. As a result of the complaint, the Ohio Dental 
Board sent two of its investigators to the Respondent's practice to 
conduct an infection control evaluation.\24\ Tr. 400. The Respondent 
was not at the Norwalk office, so the Board investigators met him at 
his Avon location. Tr. 401. The report of the Board's investigators 
(which Reitz read from with no apparent knowledge beyond the four 
corners of the document) indicated, inter alia, that they found an 
unsecured plastic bin in the Respondent's office containing 
medications, including fentanyl and Valium. Tr. 401-03. According to 
Ms. Reitz, a complaint was subsequently filed by Ms. Crockett that 
strongly resembled the anonymous complaint previously received 
regarding the Respondent's alleged drug use. Tr. 405-06. Based on the 
information they had at the time, the investigators interviewed Ms. 
Crockett, and the matter remains under investigation. Tr. 408-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ There was also testimony that in November of 2008 the Board 
and the Respondent entered into a consent agreement related to an 
issue that has no logical nexus to any issue germane to these 
proceedings. Tr. 391-92, 394-96.
    \24\ Reitz testified that an infection control evaluation 
examines issues related to sterilization, infection control, and 
licensing. Tr. 400.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ms. Reitz's testimony was sufficiently detailed, consistent, and 
plausible to be afforded credibility,\25\ but the weight of her 
testimony regarding the Board's investigation of the Respondent is 
diminished by the reality that she was doing no more than relating the 
results of a report prepared by her subordinates, and admitted that she 
knew nothing more than (and could provide no insight beyond) the words 
on the page of her investigators' report. Tr. 401-03. Thus, it would be 
unreasonable to afford her testimony in this regard greater weight than 
if the report upon which she so heavily depended (and which was her 
constant companion on the stand) was admitted and considered without 
her appearance.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The Respondent's theory that the Board's investigation was 
the result of bad blood that had its genesis in Reitz's disagreement 
in the Respondent's support for state legislation regarding the 
conduct of Board proceedings and a potential lawsuit was not 
sufficiently developed on this record to affect Ms. Reitz 
credibility. Tr. 414-17.
    \26\ Although the Respondent, through counsel, noticed his 
intention to call the Ohio Dental Board's case investigator as a 
witness (ALJ Exs. 10, 12), the unrefuted testimony of record 
establishes that he refused to tender the required witness fee to 
the investigator. Tr. 417-21; 21 U.S.C. 876; Fed. R. Civ. P. 45; 28 
CFR 76.25. Thus, the decision by the Respondent's counsel to forego 
the opportunity to cross-examine the investigator bears the 
hallmarks of a tactical election.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Government also presented affidavits and testimony from three 
individuals who were employed at the Respondent's dental practice 
during the events that form the basis of its current revocation 
actions. The first of these former employees was Rebecca Crockett.\27\ 
Ms. Crockett testified that at the outset of her employment at the 
Respondent's practice she was charged with the responsibility of 
maintaining drug logs completed on patients during procedures, and with 
alerting the Respondent when sedation medication stocks were dwindling 
to a level where more needed to be ordered. Tr. 154, 182, 196; see also 
Gov't Ex. 12 at 2. Crockett recalled no occasion during her tenure as 
the drug-log custodian when controlled substances were missing or 
unaccounted for,\28\ but did recall that Rebecca Tetzloff, an employee 
who subsequently assumed responsibility for the drug log, approached 
her with concerns about missing medication. Id. Crockett testified that 
the Respondent maintained two Ohio offices; one at Norwalk and another 
at Avon, and that she worked at both locations (which were each open 
two days per week) and observed the Respondent transport controlled 
substances to and from both practice locations. Tr. 154-58. The 
controlled substances (lorazepam, diazepam, and fentanyl) were 
transported on a cart that was loaded at the Norwalk office and driven 
to the Avon office. Tr. 157, 186-88, 197. According to Crockett, 
controlled substances were routinely stored in both the Norwalk and the 
Avon offices. Tr. 156-57, 186-88, 197-98. Crockett stated that because 
the daily preparations in the Avon office were frequently done in a 
hurry, controlled substances were routinely left unsecured on top of a 
sterilization room counter. Tr. 158. The sterilization room at the Avon 
office although not locked, was located in an inner, treatment area of 
the practice, to the rear of front reception desk, and was separated 
from the patient waiting room

[[Page 72395]]

by some form of controlled-access door.\29\ Tr. 158-60, 210.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Ms. Crockett's affidavit was received into evidence. Gov't 
Ex. 12.
    \28\ Gov't Ex. 12 at 2.
    \29\ Notwithstanding some initial confusion on this issue, Tr. 
160, 199, the witness ultimately and credibly testified that the 
patients waiting to be seen were maintained on the other side of a 
door that led to the waiting room. Tr. 200-01, 208-09.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Crockett testified that she and other employees noticed marks on 
the Respondent's upper extremities that they feared may have indicated 
IV drug use on his part, and observed behavior on the part of the 
Respondent that they communally deemed to be overly erratic, moody, and 
emotional. Tr, 164-67. After discussing these observations amongst 
themselves, they met with him as a group (in what some of their number 
termed an ``intervention'') and received his assurance that he was 
``getting help'' for what ailed him. Tr. 164-67, 181, 202-03; Gov't Ex. 
12 at 2-3. The Respondent did not share with the group what help he was 
getting or what it was for. Id. Crockett related a 2009 incident where 
she believed that the Respondent appeared to be intoxicated and/or 
disoriented at the outset of a procedure \30\ and raised the issue with 
the office manager, Christina Painley. Tr. 172-73, 202.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Of particular concern to Crockett during this episode was 
the Respondent's action in removing a hypodermic needle cap with his 
mouth. Tr. 173, 201-02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ms. Crockett testified that she voluntarily elected not to return 
to her position at the Respondent's practice at the conclusion of a 
period of maternity leave,\31\ due to her concerns regarding her safety 
brought about by the Respondent's animated, angry outbursts, as well as 
concerns she had for the Respondent's patients, based on her suspicion 
that the Respondent was abusing sedation controlled substances 
maintained in the office. Gov't Ex. 12 at 3; Tr. 167-69, 174, 190. 
Crockett related that subsequent to her departure from the Respondent's 
employment she filed for unemployment benefits and sent a letter to the 
Ohio Dental Board outlining her suspicions regarding the Respondent's 
drug abuse. Tr. 177, 206-07. Ms. Crockett testified that her letter to 
the Dental Board was motivated by her concern for the safety of both 
the Respondent and his patients. Tr. 177-79.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Although the witness's affidavit fixes her resignation in 
June 2009, Gov't Ex. 12 at 3, Crockett credibly testified that her 
decision in this regard was made in September 2009, while still out 
on maternity leave following the birth of her son. Tr. 191, 194-95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ms. Crockett's testimony was sufficiently detailed, internally 
consistent, and plausible to be relied upon as credible in this 
recommended decision. No persuasive reason for her to fabricate 
evidence against the Respondent has been offered into, or is supported 
by, the current record.
    The Government also presented the testimony and affidavit \32\ of 
former employee Rebecca Tetzloff, who worked on the Respondent's staff 
from March 2008 through October 2009. Gov't Ex. 10 at 1. Like Ms. 
Crockett, Ms. Tetzloff testified that she worked at both the Norwalk 
and Avon offices of the Respondent's practice, transported controlled 
substances to the Avon office, and that the Respondent routinely 
administered and stored controlled substances at the Avon office. Tr. 
221, 223-27; Gov't Ex. 10 at 2. In fact, Ms. Tetzloff testified that 
she actually maintained a log recording controlled substances stored at 
Avon. Tr. 225-26. According to Tetzloff, before the Ohio Dental Board 
insisted on the installation of a safe, controlled substances were 
routinely kept at Avon in an intermittently-locked filing cabinet in an 
arrangement that frequently yielded ready access to the keys that could 
lock (or unlock) it. Tr. 227-32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Gov't Ex. 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with Crockett's testimony, Tetzloff recollected that 
when controlled substances were unpacked at the Avon office, they were 
left unsecured in the ``rush, rush, rush'' of setting up equipment at 
the outset of the day. Tr. 233. According to Tetzloff, the controlled 
substances (midazolam, diazepam, and fentanyl) would be transported to 
Avon in a bin on a cart and left on a counter in the sterilization 
room. Tr. 233-36.
    At some point during her employment at the Respondent's practice, 
Tetzloff was charged with the responsibility of accounting for the 
controlled substances used and on-hand in the practice. Gov't Ex. 10 at 
2. In the discharge of these duties, Ms. Tetzloff became concerned 
about an apparent spike in the level at which office supplies were 
requiring replacement, and began having trouble reconciling the 
quantities of medications on hand. Tr. 237; Gov't Ex. 10 at 2. Ms. 
Tetzloff tacitly acknowledged that this was a rather unscientific 
process where, by the mere act of counting vials of medication, she 
would somehow divine whether too many vials had been used based on her 
expectation of how many vials should have been present, with no 
appreciable expertise to appraise how many vials were used on the 
procedures performed. Tr. 282-84, 291, 295, 307, 314-15. Tetzloff 
recalled that on one occasion when she called the Respondent while he 
was at his teaching position at Case Western Reserve University and 
asked him about a particular controlled substance deficit, he informed 
her that he had taken the medication with him. Tr. 237-38; Gov't Ex. 10 
at 2-3. On another occasion, upon her arrival at the Norwalk office one 
morning, Tetzloff discovered a vial of diazepam sitting unsecured on 
top of the office safe. Tr. 241. When queried on the issue of why a 
controlled substance was left out in the open in that fashion, the 
Respondent's answer was merely to acknowledge what Tetzloff perceived 
with her own eyes, without any attempt at explanation. Tr. 241-42. When 
Tetzloff's suspicions grew, and she became increasingly concerned that 
medications were not being effectively locked up in the Norwalk office, 
she sought the advice of an attorney, who assisted her in drafting a 
letter raising her concerns to the Respondent and seeking discharge 
from her duties related to the accounting of office controlled 
subsances. Tr. 238, 243-47, 296-97. Tetzloff credibly testified that 
she presented the letter \33\ to the Respondent and a member of his 
staff. Tr. 247-48; Gov't Ex. 10 at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Gov't Ex. 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tetzloff also related her recollection of marks on the Respondent's 
upper extremities which she felt were suspiciously reminiscent of track 
marks,\34\ as well as bouts of animated anger bursts, ``irritability,'' 
\35\ and essentially eratic behavior \36\ during the work day on the 
Respondent's part,\37\ all of which culminated in a staff meeting on a 
Friday when no patient appointments were scheduled (``the 
intervention''), wherein the Respondent

[[Page 72396]]

assured all present that he was seeking (unspecified) help that was 
related, Tetzloff thought, to a depression condition. Tr. 223, 249-32, 
255-60, 263, 285, 298; Gov't Ex. 10 at 4. According to Tetzloff, the 
Respondent took a week-long vacation immediately after the meeting. Tr. 
252.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Ms. Tetzloff did not deem the Respondent's explanation that 
his large dogs caused the marks by scratching his arms to be 
particularly credible. Tr. 253-55.
    \35\ Tr. 276-77.
    \36\ Tetzloff also related an incident wherein, on some date 
that she was unable to recall, she observed an uncapped hypodermic 
needle on the floor of the van used by the Respondent and other 
employees to transport medications and supplies between the Norwalk 
and Avon offices. Tr. 268-272, 308-10. The evidence of record 
indicates that the van routinely carried practice supplies, 
including hypodermic needles, and also supports the proposition that 
there were routinely multiple operators of the van. Tr. 269, 795-99. 
Accordingly, the evidence does not impact upon any issue that must 
be decided in these proceedings and was not considered in this 
recommended decision. The same can be said of an alleged episode of 
what Tetzloff perceived as erratic driving on the Respondent's part. 
Tr. 272-74, 625-26, 799-801. These incidents, at least to the extent 
they have been developed in the current record, simply have no 
bearing on any issues properly before this tribunal.
    \37\ Ms. Tetzloff acknowledged that although the Respondent was 
``a demanding employer,'' that he is not the only dentist she knows 
of who possesses that trait. Tr. 288.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the issue of disposal, Tetzloff recalled routinely squirting 
controlled substances remaining in hypodermic needles at the conclusion 
of procedures into the sink. Tr. 305.
    Ms. Tetzloff, like Ms. Crockett, testified that she cared about the 
Respondent, describing him as ``a good surgeon'' and ``a very good 
boss.'' Tr. 278. Ms. Tetzloff's testimony was sufficiently detailed, 
internally consistent, and plausible to be relied upon as credible in 
this recommended decision. No persuasive reason for her to fabricate 
evidence against the Respondent has been offered into, or is supported 
by, the current record.
    The final former employee presented by the Government in its case-
in-chief was Dr. Brian Toth, D.D.S.\38\ Like the Respondent, Dr Toth, 
is a DEA registrant and a licensed Ohio dentist in good standing. Gov't 
Exs. 4, 13; Tr. 320-21, 337, 344. Although Dr. Toth's affidavit states 
that he ``worked at [Respondent's] Norwalk and Avon dental offices from 
January 2009 through January 2010,'' Gov't Ex. 13, at ] 2, during his 
testimony he agreed that the period of his employment could have been 
from April 2009 through February 2010. Tr. 336.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ An affidavit executed by Dr. Toth was received into 
evidence. Gov't Ex. 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also in his affidavit, Dr. Toth asserts that, ``[f]rom my 
observations, I believe that [Respondent] has injected himself with 
fentanyl and Versed (midazolam). I base my belief on my training as 
well as my observations of [Respondent's] erratic and aggressive 
behavior, red eyes, mood swings, anger, frustration, and lack of care 
while treating patients.'' Gov't Ex. 13, at ] 2. The affidavit also 
identifies the following as alleged indices of drug abuse: (1) 
Respondent's physical assault of Christina Painley; (2) track marks on 
Respondent's arms; \39\ (3) ``meth bugs,'' described as ``scratching, 
and sores about the wrists, arms, and head;'' \40\ (4) an incident on a 
undated Friday \41\ morning where Dr. Toth observed Respondent enter 
the Norwalk dental office, appearing ``[d]isheveled, out of sorts, 
[and] wobbly,'' \42\ in ``pajamas and flip flops,'' and walk in the 
general direction of the office drug safe stating that he needed 
antibiotics for a cold.\43\ Gov't Ex. 13, at ]] 3-4; Tr. 327-28. Toth, 
like other witnesses, testified that the Respondent was prone to 
``drastic mood swings'' and ``erratic behavior.'' Tr. 332.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ In his testimony, Dr. Toth opined that the marks on the 
Respondent's arm bore the appearance of IV drug abuse, not the marks 
of a teacher allowing students to practice IV insertion techniques. 
Tr. 326. In view of the absence of any foundation for Dr. Toth's 
expertise in this area, this testimony has been afforded no weight 
in this recommended decision.
    \40\ Dr. Toth testified that he has never tried methamphetamine. 
Tr. 347-48. In view of the absence of any foundation for Dr. Toth's 
expertise in this area beyond spending time at a rehabilitation 
clinic related to other substances, Tr. 326-27, this testimony has 
been afforded no weight in this recommended decision.
    \41\ Though Dr. Toth's identified the incident as occurring on a 
Saturday morning, during the administrative hearing he clarified 
that the incident occurred on a Friday. Tr. 327, 361-62.
    \42\ Tr. 330.
    \43\ Dr. Toth found this explanation implausible because 
``antibiotics are not used to treat colds,'' and because ``the 
Norwalk office did not store antibiotics in the drug safe.'' Gov't 
Ex. 13, at ] 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Toth's affidavit also described a post-DEA inspection restaurant 
interaction wherein the Respondent purportedly confessed to Toth that 
he was taking Valium \44\ as a sleep aid, and subsequently told him 
that adjustments were being made to office controlled substance records 
to shield the losses from DEA scrutiny. Gov't Ex. 13 at 3. When pressed 
on the issue, however, Dr. Toth was not at all clear on whether the 
incident happened before or after DEA's involvement in the case. Tr. 
353-56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Valium is a brand of diazepam tablets. See 6-V Attorneys' 
Dictionary of Medicine V-121686.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dr. Toth testified that he is a recovering alcoholic and cocaine 
addict, and that he has been ``clean and sober'' since 2006. Tr. 322-
23. Notwithstanding the witness's unambiguous assurance of his 
uninterrupted recovery and sobriety, when confronted with documentation 
concerning his April 2011 convictions for disorderly conduct/
intoxication and marijuana possession,\45\ Dr. Toth conceded that he 
had been arrested and pled guilty to those offenses. Tr. 337-44, 346.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Resp't Exs. K, L.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The issue of Dr. Toth's success at his substance abuse recovery 
efforts (at least on the present record) is, without question, a 
collateral issue. However, when Dr. Toth volunteered, under oath, that 
he had been clean and sober since 2006, and then grudgingly 
acknowledged marijuana and alcohol-related convictions seven months 
prior to the commencement of the hearing, he deprived his own testimony 
of any measure of credibility in these proceedings.\46\ Simply stated, 
Dr. Toth is not a person who is willing to provide candid and truthful 
testimony under oath, and in those instances where his account 
conflicts with other credible evidence of record it cannot be believed. 
Thus, his testimony cannot be afforded weight in supporting a 
substantial-evidence finding by this recommended decision and 
ultimately, by the Agency. Furthermore, inasmuch as he was unable to 
supply virtually any temporal details of the factual events he 
described, and his purported observation of a ``disheveled'' and 
``wobbly'' Respondent standing in his own office, on some unspecified 
date, headed in the general direction in his office where controlled 
substances were stored, would (even if deemed credible) shed no light 
on anything that must be decided in this case, the absence of his 
testimony here will be of no moment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ In like fashion, when cross-examined about (mostly 
irrelevant) statements he purportedly placed on a Facebook page, Dr. 
Toth initially denied having such a page during the relevant period, 
and then conceded that he did. Tr. 347-50. In this manner, Toth once 
again managed to morph irrelevant matter (the arguably unsavory 
comments he posted on his Facebook page) into a relevant issue (his 
disinclination to provide accurate testimony under oath).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Government also presented the testimony and written report,\47\ 
of Daniel Becker, D.D.S. Dr. Becker,\48\ currently serves as an 
Associate Director of Education in the General Dental Practice 
Department at Miami Valley Hospital, in Dayton, Ohio, is an Associate 
Editor of Anesthesia Progress for the American Dental Society of 
Anesthesiology, and also serves as an Adjunct Professor of Life and 
Health Sciences at Sinclair Community College in Dayton, Ohio. Gov't 
Ex. 14. Additionally, Dr. Becker is the Chairman of the Human Patient 
Simulation Training Subcommittee at the American Dental Society of 
Anesthesiology. Id. Dr. Becker also testified that he teaches 
intravenous sedation techniques to dental residents, and is actively 
engaged in the practice of IV sedation to patients at numerous dental 
practices in Ohio. Tr. 32. Dr. Becker was received without objection as 
an expert in the practice of general dentistry in regards to 
pharmacology, sedation, and anesthesia. Tr. 29-30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Gov't Ex. 15.
    \48\ This Dr. Becker is not related to the Respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In his testimony, Dr. Becker (like Ms. Reitz) explained that in 
Ohio there are two varieties of dental sedation that are sanctioned by 
state law, with separate practitioner permits specified for each type. 
A ``conscious sedation permit,'' is required to sedate a patient to a 
depth where the patient is capable of being aroused, that is capable of 
responding to verbal commands. Tr. 41, 71. A ``deep

[[Page 72397]]

sedation/general anesthesia permit,'' in contrast, is required to 
sedate a patient to unconsciousness. Tr. 42. A conscious sedation 
permit may be obtained by a dentist after the completion of a course on 
the subject, while a deep sedation/general anesthesia permit requires 
the successful completion of a year-long residency. Tr. 41-42, 44-45. 
Becker testified that where general anesthesia is utilized,\49\ 
additional personnel and monitoring equipment normally will be 
required. Gov't Ex. 15 at 1; Tr. 62-64, 85-86.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Dr. Becker testified that sedation in excess of conscious 
sedation is generally utilized in cases involving special needs, 
such as physically or mentally handicapped patients. Tr. 76.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the Government's request, Dr. Becker reviewed forty-three 
records of IV sedation \50\ that had been administered by the 
Respondent and found all but one of the records were below ``the 
standard of practice'' because they did not reflect current vital signs 
or actual time at the time the medications were administered. Gov't Ex. 
15 at 1. Dr. Becker's report further identified 17 patient charts which 
he found to be ``egregious.'' Id. The report also sets forth Becker's 
expert opinion that the doses recorded in the charts he reviewed were 
sufficiently high that, at least in his view, monitoring, staff, 
equipment, and general anesthesia training beyond what was apparent in 
the reviewed documents would have been required. Id. Becker noted that 
despite what he characterized as ``staggering doses,'' the records he 
evaluated reflected only four occasions where reversal drugs were 
administered, and that the records reflected none of the complications 
such as hypotension or respiratory arrest that he would have expected 
to encounter with doses at those levels. Id. At 2. In Becker's opinion, 
``[t]his raises a question as to whether these doses were actually 
administered [because] [f]ollowing these dosages, serious complications 
would most surely have been encountered.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Dr. Becker testified that it was common practice among 
dentists to have these records completed by staff members during 
dental procedures. Tr. 146-47. This is consonant with the testimony 
of Ms. Crockett that office staff merely acted as a scrivener with 
regard the document, entering the numbers dictated by the 
Respondent. Tr. 183-85.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to Dr. Becker, in most cases where midazolam is used for 
conscious sedation, the required level of sedation could be obtained by 
10 mgs or less, but that more midazolam might be needed for a longer 
appointment.\51\ Tr. 58-60. Dr. Becker further testified that a 
patient's resistance to midazolam could alter the amount of drug 
necessary to achieve the desired sedation. For example, Dr. Becker 
opined that for a ``fairly resistant'' patient, twenty to thirty 
milligrams of midazolam might be necessary for a 3-4 hour procedure, 
and that there are some patients who are simply not sedatable with this 
medication.\52\ In Becker's opinion, however, those cases that require 
the higher doses and demonstrate resistance are rare. Tr. 60-61. 
Midazolam, according to Dr. Becker, is administered in one-to-two 
milligram increments to achieve the desired level of sedation. Tr. 62. 
A five-miligram increment would cause a patient to lose consciousness, 
which in turn risks throat obstruction and breathing impairment. Tr. 
62. Becker explained that it is for these reasons that procedures where 
general anesthesia is employed require additional staffing (of at least 
one additional person) during the procedures to monitor the patient 
breathing and EKG \53\ via precordial stethoscope or capnography. Gov't 
Ex. 15 at 1; Tr. 62-64, 85-86.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Dr. Becker's difference of professional opinion with the 
Respondent's practice regarding the relative merits of combining 
midazolam and diazepam versus increasing the doses of those 
respective medications, Tr. 77-78, 731-32, 735; Gov't Ex. 15 at 1, 
does not provide any insight on the issue of diversion risk or 
whether the Respondent's continued DEA registration is inconsistent 
with the public interest, and has played no part in this recommended 
decision. See Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 274 (2006).
    \52\ Dr. Becker testified that the sedation logs reflect 
medication given, but ordinarily do not reflect any rationale for 
higher-than-normal doses of sedation medication or sufficient data 
from which that decision could be extrapolated. Tr. 66-67, 74, 76-
77.
    \53\ During his testimony, the Respondent stated that his 
patients were routinely monitored by EKG and pulse oximeter. Tr. 
736.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dr. Becker identified seventeen records of Respondent's sedation 
dispensing that he characterized as egregiously below the expected 
standard of care. Gov't Ex. 15 at 1. Among these seventeen records are 
instances where: (1) A patient was administered 55 mgs of midazolam and 
200 micrograms of Fentanyl over a span of 15 minutes; (2) a patient was 
administered 40 mgs of midazolam, 40 mgs of Diazepam and 100 mcgs of 
fentanyl over a span of approximately 15 minutes; (3) a patient was 
administered 30 mgs of midazolam, 10 mgs of diazepam and 100 mcgs of 
fentanyl over a span of approximately a minute; and (3) a patient was 
administered 100 mgs of midazolam, 70 mgs of diazepam and 200 mcgs of 
fentanyl over a time span of approximately 90 minutes. Id. In his 
report and his testimony, Becker affirms that the medications in these 
doses would have rendered the patients unconscious. Id. at 1; Tr. 79, 
84-85, 87-89. Becker's view is that sedation to unconsciousness was not 
an intent supported by the records he reviewed, as evidenced by the 
lack of additional professional monitoring staff, and would have 
required the deep sedation/general anesthesia permit that the 
Respondent does not possess. Tr. 85-86; Gov't Ex. 15 at 1.
    Dr. Becker testified that, absent some type of resistance to 
midazolam, the doses identified in his expert report would 
``predictably'' produce unconsciousness.'' Tr. 84. However, Dr. Becker 
noted that such resistance, while possible, is ``rare,'' and that over 
thirty years of practice he had not seen as many resistant patients as 
Respondent's patient records appeared to contain during a relatively 
brief period. Gov't Ex. 15 at Tr. 84-85. Assuming that not all the 
patients in the charts analyzed were resistant, Dr. Becker testified 
that the sedation records reflected a treatment regime below the 
standard of care for moderate sedation. Becker opined that there were 
simply too many patients receiving deep-sedation levels of medication 
during the time he analyzed Respondent's records to attribute that 
number to medication resistance. Tr. 84-85. Although Becker identified 
four occasions where medication reversal drugs were administered by the 
Respondent, the records shed no light on whether that was done pursuant 
to persistent somnolence or some other complication. Tr. 112-13. 
Finally, Dr. Becker provided his conclusion that based on the 
likelihood of widespread unconsciousness among the patients, the 
Respondent's lack of training and certification in general anesthesia, 
the lack of complications documented in the record regarding breathing 
obstruction, he entertains serious questions as to whether the amounts 
of controlled substances documented in the sedation reports were 
actually administered to the enumerated patients. Tr. 90-92. In 
Becker's view, since these high levels of medications were unlikely to 
have been administered to this number of patients without evidence of 
adverse effect, either the sedation records he reviewed were simply 
erroneous, or the medications listed in those records were not 
administered as documented and something else became of them. Tr. 93. 
Dr. Becker testified that the ``staggering'' doses of controlled 
substances reflected as administered in the sedation records he 
reviewed support his conclusion that the Respondent's handling of 
controlled substances was ``below the standard of practice.'' Tr. 94-
95.

[[Page 72398]]

    At one point during his testimony, Dr. Becker conceded that on one 
occasion medication was drawn for a patient \54\ who did not appear for 
treatment, and the medication was disposed of. Tr. 115-17. In an 
unfortunate choice of words employed during his re-evaluation of 
whether the record relating to the drawn and discarded medication was 
comparable to the other records he characterized as ``egregious,'' Dr. 
Becker stated that although he still found the practice of drawing 
sedation medication prior to patient arrival ``strange,'' ``odd,'' and 
``funny,'' he believed that he ``should be punished'' for his initial 
characterization. Tr. 117-23. Nonetheless, Dr. Becker stated that the 
practice of drawing medication prior to the arrival of a patient did 
not impact on documentation obligations, and did not fall below an 
acceptable level of practice. Tr. 145, 123.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ The Respondent testified that this patient did not appear 
for her appointment. Tr. 784-85.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the issue of the ``track marks'' that were purportedly seen on 
the Respondent's arms by his staff, Dr. Becker acknowledged that, as 
part of his teaching responsibilities, he instructs students on 
establishing IV access. Tr. 33. Consistent with the position taken by 
the Respondent, Dr. Becker testified that he does allow patients to 
practice IV insertion on himself, including on the backs of his hands. 
Tr. 33-34, 135. Becker conceded that some days the practice attempts by 
his students have him resembling a ``pin cushion,'' \55\ but he 
described the needle punctures routinely made on arms by the relatively 
small needles handled by students in his class, which in his view, 
``generally [does not] leave much of a mark.'' Tr. 34. Dr. Becker also 
explained that a ``difficult attempt'' by a less skilled individual can 
result in a hematoma, or bruise. Tr. 34-35. Dr. Becker testified that 
the scars generally referred to as ``track marks'' are the product of 
repeated attempts into the same veins by habitual drug abusers. Tr. 37-
38. According to Dr. Becker, those experienced teachers who allow their 
students to practice venipuncture on them in class minimize the risk of 
scarring by requiring their students to avoid repeated attempts at the 
same location. Tr. 37-38. It is Dr. Becker's opinion that poorly-done 
clinical attempts at IV insertions by students are more likely than 
drug use to produce bruising. Tr. 39. A bruise left by an improper IV 
insertion could last for ``several'' days. Tr. 40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Tr. 135.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notwithstanding the Government's posture that the Respondent has 
violated the regulations by squirting controlled substances remaining 
in the hypodermic needles after procedures into the sink, Becker (the 
Government's own expert) testified that this is his practice as well. 
Tr. 55-58, 100-01. Furthermore, Dr. Becker expressed agreement with the 
Respondent's expert that the DEA regulations on disposal are unclear. 
Tr. 105.
    On the issue of whether the observations of the Respondent's 
moodiness, grouchiness, and erratic behavior support the concerns of 
his former employees that he was abusing the controlled substances 
acquired for procedures in his practice, Dr. Becker testified that an 
individual under the influence of midazolam would likely exhibit 
symptoms of lethargy or calming. Tr. 69, 71. Thus, none of the 
characteristics highlighted by the Respondent's former employees in 
their testimony or during the ``intervention'' conducted in his office 
support an inference that the Respondent was abusing the controlled-
substance medications he employed to sedate his patients.
    Dr. Becker was by no means an ideal expert witness. He was vague 
about the method that his ``most egregious'' list of cases were 
selected, and retreated from his designation of one case as egregious 
by the flip remark that he ``should be punished'' \56\ for his initial 
opinion in this regard. Still, his testimony was sufficiently 
authoritative, consistent, and reasonable that it will be credited and 
afforded significant weight in this recommended decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ Tr. 117-23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Respondent's case-in-chief consisted of his own testimony and 
an affidavit from Dr. Joel Weaver, D.D.S., Ph.D., an individual he 
previously noticed as an expert witness. The affidavit executed by Dr. 
Weaver was admitted on motion and without Government objection during 
the hearing. Resp't Ex. J.
    According to his curriculum vitae, Dr. Weaver served from 1981-
2006, as a professor in the Department of Anesthesiology at the Ohio 
State University. Resp't Ex. G, at 1. He holds a Bachelors of Science 
from Ohio Northern University and a D.D.S., from the Ohio State 
University College of Dentistry. Resp't Ex. G, at 1. Additionally, Dr. 
Weaver has completed residencies at the Ohio State University in both 
Anesthesiology and in Ambulatory General Anesthesia and Sedation. Id. 
Dr. Weaver also holds a Ph.D. in pharmacology from the Ohio State 
University, and has been previously certified as a pharmacist in 
Ohio.\57\ Resp't Ex. G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ Although initially noticed as an expert witness by the 
Respondent, Dr. Weaver was never called as a witness at the hearing. 
the Respondent's counsel, citing a logistical issue, represented 
that Dr. Weaver was unavailable, and that this information only 
became available to counsel on the eve of the commencement of the 
hearing. Tr. 9. Accepting counsel's representation of late notice of 
Dr. Weaver's availability, it is not insignificant that no 
continuance request or other accommodation (such as video 
teleconferencing) was requested by the Respondent to facilitate the 
witness's testimony. A perhaps unintended consequence of what may 
well have been a tactical decision on the part of the Respondent and 
his counsel, is that Dr. Weaver was never offered or accepted as an 
expert in anything during the proceedings. Confounding the issue 
further, the Government's expert, Dr. Becker, conceded that Dr. 
Weaver is ``well more experienced'' than he is in terms of both 
training and experience. Tr. 106. DEA's regulations comport with the 
generally reasonable notion that information received through 
affidavit must be weighted consistent with the opposing party's lack 
of cross examination ability. 21 CFR 1316.58 (``Affidavits admitted 
into evidence shall be considered in light of the lack of 
opportunity for cross-examination in determining the weight to be 
attached to the statements made therein.'') Accordingly, as the 
record now stands, the Government's expert testified that Dr. Weaver 
is a superior expert, but no one has offered him to the tribunal as 
such, and the Government, by surprise at the outset of the hearing, 
has not been afforded any manner of cross-examination. Still, the 
Government consented to the admission of Dr. Weaver's affidavit, and 
did not make any attempts to compel his appearance by process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In his affidavit, Dr. Weaver described what he characterized as a 
``concern * * * as to the proper procedure to dispose of injectable 
drugs remaining when perhaps 5 [milliliters' (ML)] is drawn into a 
syringe but only 4 ML is actually injected into the patient's 
[intravenous (IV)].'' Resp't Ex. J at ] 2. Although Dr. Weaver's report 
did not address a practitioner's obligation to comply with regulatory 
requirements under 21 CFR 1307.21,\58\ after providing some anecdotal 
evidence relative to logistical concerns attendant upon disposal 
issues, his affidavit set forth his view that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ The obligation to interpret the law and regulations falls 
squarely within the purview of this tribunal initially, and then 
secondarily with the Agency. Dr. Weaver's purported legal analysis 
of the regulations and DEA's interpretation of the applicable 
requirements has been accepted into evidence without objection as 
part of the affidavit he prepared, but cannot control the legal 
analysis employed by this recommended decision.

[t]he standard practice among dentists in Ohio * * * is for the 
dentist to log the dose of the drug taken from his inventory, record 
the dose given to the patient in the patient sedation/anesthesia 
record and record any ``wasted'' doses in either the drug log, the 
patient's anesthesia record or both as soon as the case is 
concluded. The ``wasted'' drug is typically squirted into the sink 
(no longer politically correct because of community water trace 
contamination), into the trash or sharps container, or into the soil 
of potted plants as a source of nitrogen-containing

[[Page 72399]]

fertilizer. Some practitioners have a witness initial the record of 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``wasted drug.''

Resp't Ex. J, at ] 5.
    Dr. Weaver also provided his opinion regarding what he 
characterized as ``mobile sedation and anesthesia practitioners.'' 
Resp't Ex. J, at ] 9. In essence, the practice of mobile sedation and 
anesthesia is where a practitioner has ``one permanent office address 
where they do business and that is where they are registered for their 
DEA license. They order, receive, and securely store controlled 
substances at that single address and maintain all drugs logs and 
patient records at that one office location.'' Resp't Ex. J, at ] 10. 
The practitioner will then administer the drugs at various dental and 
medical offices where anesthesia or sedation might be required. Id. In 
any year, a mobile anesthesiologist ``may service more than 50-100 
offices.'' Id. In light of the foregoing, Dr. Weaver opines that ``[i]t 
would be impractical if not impossible for the anesthesiologist or 
other healthcare worker to have a separate DEA license for every 
location they service so long as the drugs and records are not stored 
at those multiple locations but rather at their single office 
location.'' Id., at ] 11. Inasmuch as the Government has not alleged 
that the Respondent was required to obtain a COR to take controlled 
substances to varying locations and return and store them as required, 
Dr. Weaver's endorsement of such a procedure adds nothing here. The 
Respondent is alleged to have administered and stored controlled 
substances at an unregistered permanent private practice, a scenario 
which Dr. Weaver, even if assumed competent to express a view on a this 
issue of law, did not address.
    While Dr. Weaver's qualifications are doubtless impressive, even 
setting aside the absence of any foundational predicate for the 
presentation of expert opinion, his affidavit provides no expert 
opinion that sheds light on any issue that must be decided by this 
recommended decision. However, his observation that his experience that 
Ohio practitioners routinely dispose of small amounts of residual 
controlled substance by squirting into drains all over the state is 
consistent with the testimony provided by the Government's expert, its 
investigator, and its lay witnesses, and will be credited in these 
proceedings. Weaver's opinion concerning the wisdom or logistical 
practicalities of the relevant DEA regulations regarding the authorized 
manner of controlled substance disposal have been afforded no weight 
whatsoever.
    The Respondent testified on his own behalf at the hearing. 
According to the Respondent, he holds a Bachelor of Arts from the 
University of Toledo and a D.D.S. from the Ohio State University.\59\ 
The Respondent also holds a certificate in periodontics from the Case 
Western Reserve University School of Dentistry, a certificate in Zygoma 
Implant placement from the Northwestern School of Dentistry and a IV 
certification from the University of Southern California School of 
Dentistry, and from 1996 through the present he has maintained a 
private practice in Norwalk and Avon, Ohio.\60\ Id. Respondent 
testified that he limits his dental practice to the field of 
periodontics, ``which involves bone grafting, dental implants [and] gum 
and bone surgery.'' Tr. 656. The Respondent testified that because many 
of his patients ``are very apprehensive in regards to that type of 
procedure,'' IV sedation is a ``critical component'' of his practice. 
TR. 660.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ The Respondent's CV was received into evidence. Resp't Ex. 
E.
    \60\ The Respondent testified that he also owns a dental clinic 
at his registered location in Milwaukee, but does not practice IV 
sedation at that location. Tr. 661-64; see also Gov't Ex. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Respondent testified that his practice is ``all referral-
based,'' and he receives referrals of patients who require treatment 
``that's a little bit more advanced'' and who sometimes present ``very 
difficult cases.'' Tr. 657-58. When asked to explain what he meant by 
``very difficult cases'' and ``more advanced'' treatment, the 
Respondent clarified that he was referring to the fact that there was a 
limited number of periodontics specialists in the geographic area of 
his practice, and these were patients who required treatment in that 
specialty. Tr. 658. The Respondent stated that there was also a limited 
number of dentists in his geographic area who practiced conscious-
sedation dentistry. Tr. 659. Thus, from the Respondent's testimony it 
is clear that it was not that periodontists were referring difficult 
patients to him who were difficult to anesthetize, but that dentists 
were referring patients his way who simply needed periodontic treatment 
or desired conscious sedation within the Respondent's geographic area. 
Tr. 749. Thus, the Respondent's assertion that higher doses are 
required because he is a specialist is a non sequitur.
    The Respondent subsequently diminished his credibility even further 
on the issue of patient resistance. When asked about Dr. Becker's 
assertion that the sedation logs from the Respondent's practice that he 
examined had more allegedly sedation-resistant patients than he had 
encountered in his thirty years of practice, the Respondent stated that 
Becker's opinion was borne of the fact he is a ``general dentist,'' and 
not a specialist, such as the Respondent. Tr. 748-49. The problem here 
is that Dr. Becker (whom the Respondent acknowledges knowing on a 
professional basis even before the proceedings began),\61\ testified 
that his entire practice is focused on the administration of conscious 
sedation to patients for other practitioners. Tr. 23. Again, the 
Respondent seeks to confuse the difference between the specialization 
required to perform periodontic dental work with some special expertise 
in hard-to-sedate patients.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ Tr. 747-48.
    \62\ Even temporarily suspending for a moment the undisputed 
reality that the Government's expert practices exclusively in the 
area of conscious sedation for dentists and sees all manner of 
patients, had the Respondent taken the view that the seemingly high 
doses were attributable to nothing more than a simple difference of 
opinion between professionals his position would have been likely 
more effective, and certainly less revealing on the issue of 
credibility than the analytical red herring of widespread 
resistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When queried on the issue of whether his doses were high compared 
to other practitioners, the Respondent acknowledged that his former 
instructor, and the author of the textbook he uses in connection with 
his teaching responsibilities, suggests that the range of acceptable 
midazolam doses of 2.5 to 7.5 milligrams. Tr. 732-33. The Respondent 
even acknowledged that one patient received 70 milligrams of the 
medication during a procedure, an amount that the even the Respondent 
characterized as ``a large amount.'' Tr. 743, 745. Another 100 
milligram dosage was also acknowledged as ``high'' by the Respondent. 
Tr. 754. The Respondent also agreed with the Government's expert that 
his sedation records reflected ``a high proportion of [sedation-] 
resistant patients.'' Tr. 734. The explanation that the Respondent 
volunteered for this phenomenon served him worse than if he had 
remained silent on the point. The Respondent stated:

    Like I had stated earlier, I am a specialist, all right. I get 
cases sent to me that a lot of other people cannot handle, and so 
that is not unusual. I've got a lot of medically compromised 
patients that do come in the door for services, because other 
general practitioners are not comfortable handling those patients.

Tr. 734 (emphasis supplied). While it is unquestionably true (as 
acknowledged elsewhere in this recommended decision) that decisions 
regarding

[[Page 72400]]

medical care which are unrelated to the issue of diversion are beyond 
the jurisdiction of DEA,\63\ the Respondent attempted to explain the 
high (by his own admission) doses he administered by positing that as 
he had explained earlier, because he was a specialist he utilized 
higher levels of medication on his patients, which tended present more 
difficult cases. Id. Even a cursory review of what he had ``stated 
earlier'' in his testimony reveals that he gets periodontic referrals 
because there are not many periodontists near him, not that he gets 
unsedatable patients who must routinely be sedated with copious amounts 
of controlled substances. Tr. 749. His testimony in this regard was 
misleading. The Respondent was attempting to blur the line of his 
specialization in periodontics and conscious sedation with a 
hypothetical expert practitioner who is routinely sought by others in 
his field to consciously sedate patients who had been previously found 
difficult to sedate. This attempt to muddle the record did not enhance 
his credibility and has drawn attention to an issue that might 
otherwise have lived in benign, analytical obscurity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ See Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 274 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Respondent, the holder of an Ohio-issued conscious sedation 
permit, testified that he monitors his IV sedation patients ``under an 
EKG strip, as well as a pulse oximeter,'' and he unambiguously stated 
that among the sedation records reviewed by the Government's expert, 
Dr. Becker, all patients remained conscious during the sedation 
employed in the procedures. Tr. 736-37. In fact, the Respondent 
followed up this response with an unsolicited, detailed explanation of 
the reasons he is confident that all patients were conscious. Tr. 737-
38. The Respondent declared that ``if you were to ask my staff, they'll 
tell you nobody has ever been out of consciousness in my office.'' Tr. 
755. When pressed on the issue of the level of medication of one 
patient in particular, the Respondent replied:

    This patient, I can't tell you if this person was on a Fentanyl 
patch, which might require more medications. I can't tell you if 
this patient has had multiple IVs at other locations. Multiple 
occasions of having drugs such as benzodiazepines in your body, you 
develop a cellular adaption, all right. What happens is your 
metabolism becomes a tolerance to that, and so what happens, it 
takes more of the drug to get the same type of effect that you did 
maybe from the first time that you ever used that drug. So I have--
based on not having the medical history from the patient's chart 
here, I can't answer anything else other than that. This patient is 
not dead.

Tr. 742. One problematic aspect of the Respondent's explanation is that 
as the custodian of his own patient charts, contrary to his testimony, 
he is the one person who actually could have authoritatively and 
conclusively divined all these factors about these patients, but chose 
not to do so. Tr. 746, 749-51, 807. Another possible explanation 
offered by the Respondent is that some of his patients were well-to-do, 
elective surgery veterans who may have had sedation for other elective 
surgeries in the past. Tr. 750-51. Yet another possible explanation 
offered by the Respondent is that some of his patients may have had 
histories of drug abuse that they were reluctant to share.\64\ Tr. 758. 
The Respondent's election to spin all manner of hypothetical 
contingency to provide potential explanations for the dosing levels is 
a tacit acknowledgement that his dosing levels were so high that they 
actually did require additional explanation; a proposition that he 
eventually conceded. Tr. 750. The point is hammered home by the 
Respondent's terse conclusory assurance that the patient did not expire 
as a result of his sedation procedures. Id. If, as it seems from the 
Respondent's lengthy diatribe on the subject, the only possible 
explanation in the high dosage levels lies in extraordinary 
contingencies, it would seem reasonable that these contingencies would 
be at his disposal to produce. Another problematic issue is that the 
sedation logs associated with these high-dose patients note no current 
medications in the block designated for that purpose. Tr. 742, 747, 
758. This is another example of the Respondent's answer raising the 
relative importance of an inquiry that easily could have remained in 
the shadows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ In response to a series of leading questions posed by his 
counsel, the Respondent also suggested that obesity, age, and past 
surgical history could also be contributing factors to the high 
dosage levels that the Respondent was routinely using on his 
patients. Tr. 805-06. The Respondent also mentioned diabetes and 
smoking. Tr. 806. Informative as this list may have been, the record 
contains no evidence that so much as a single patient described in 
the sedation logs was impacted by any of these factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Respondent's account of DI Brinks' May 2009 visit to his 
Norwalk office was generally consistent with Brinks' version. Tr. 671-
79. It was the Respondent's recollection that when Brinks suggested his 
own drug use as a source for shortages,\65\ he not only offered his arm 
for inspection, but also offered to submit to a urinalysis.\66\ Tr. 
676-79. Consistent with Brinks' testimony, the Respondent recalled 
volunteering during the visit that he also was operating a practice in 
the Avon, Ohio \67\ where controlled substances were stored and 
dispensed. Tr. 677-78.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ The Respondent also recalled that DI Brinks similarly 
accused his office manager of abusing controlled substances that 
were not accounted for in the paperwork presented. Tr. 679-80.
    \66\ The Respondent testified that he has been randomly drug 
tested about once a year by Fisher Titus Hospital without positive 
results. Tr. 709, 730, 761-62.
    \67\ The Respondent testified that separate controlled substance 
sedation logs were maintained at the Avon office. Tr. 694.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Respondent provided additional insights into potential 
distractors that existed at the time of the DEA inspection, such as his 
heavy patient traffic on the day of the visit and his high level of 
other professional commitments during that period in his career. Tr. 
664-67, 676. Of even greater import, was the Respondent's account of 
his treatment for a mental health issue during this time. The 
Respondent initially sought treatment from his physician, progressed 
through a therapist, and ultimately sought the aid of a psychiatrist. 
Tr. 686-88, 726-28. The Respondent recounted various medications 
prescribed to address his mental health symptoms, and how, in March-
April 2009, one attempted course of prescribed Lamictal landed him in 
the Cleveland Clinic to address a medication-caused decompensation. Tr. 
686-89. This setback resulted in the Respondent taking a week off from 
work. Tr. 689-90. The Respondent also discussed the frustrations 
associated with the trials of psychiatric medication and side-effects 
that included concentration diminishment and mood lability. Tr. 689-92. 
The Respondent recalled the Friday morning meeting that his staff has 
euphemistically dubbed an ``intervention.'' Tr. 786. According to the 
Respondent, the term ``intervention'' was not utilized, suspicions of 
drug abuse on his part were never discussed, and the meeting was a 
vehicle to notify that staff that he would be out of the office for a 
week, a necessity precipitated by his adverse reaction to Lamictal. Tr. 
786-87. The Respondent described how his professional commitments 
caused stress that, at least in his view, contributed to his mental 
health difficulties, and that some of this was ameliorated when he 
retreated from his teaching responsibilities at Case Western in 2010. 
Tr. 690-91.
    The Respondent commendably took the evidence of what his former 
staff members considered erratic behavior head on, and acknowledged 
that he is ``a

[[Page 72401]]

very hard person to work for,'' and that he has thrown surgical 
instruments in the past, and has yelled at more than one employee 
during his career as a dentist. Tr. 790-92. On the subject of his late 
morning arrival and puncture wounds on the tops of his hands on a day 
where he was not teaching at Case Western, the Respondent offered no 
explanation, other than his assertion that he is ``a picker,'' who 
picks at the skin on his head, and that he has a playful, large 
Newfoundland dog. Tr. 792-94.
    Regarding the allegations that controlled substances were 
periodically unsecured at the Avon office, the Respondent testified 
that it was the practice of his office to transport controlled 
substances to the Avon Office in a bin about the size of a shoe box. 
Tr. 768-69. The bin was taken into the sterilization room of the Avon 
Office by a cart, and staff members were ``supposed to put [the 
controlled substances] on [the Respondent's] desk [where] they get 
locked.'' Tr. 768-69. Despite this policy, the Respondent did not 
dispute that controlled substances were left on the counter, or that 
they may have been left on the counter when the Ohio Dental Board 
investigators conducted their inspection. Tr. 770, 772-74. However, the 
Respondent claimed that ``at some point [the drugs] would have gotten 
to my office.'' Tr. 770.
    Although the Respondent acknowledged that he teaches his students 
to simultaneously record amounts of controlled substances utilized 
during conscious sedation procedures on the form designed for that 
purpose, his own practice was to write the administered doses on a 
paper towel and transfer those numbers to the sedation logs later. Tr. 
680-84. Curiously, the Respondent's testimony diverged from that of his 
testifying staff members to the extent that they were unambiguous and 
unanimous in their assertion that when completing sedation logs they 
acted as scriveners, merely recording the amounts of medication that 
the Respondent called out.\68\ The Respondent, for his part, claims 
that the staff members independently divined the medication amounts by 
their own examination of the syringes while the procedures were in 
progress and entered those values onto the sedation logs without his 
input. Tr. 695-97, 743. But in earlier testimony, when describing his 
paper-towel procedure, he employed the word ``we'' when describing the 
manner in which the amounts were recorded. Tr. 680-84. If a staff 
member were the sole individual charged with monitoring and entering 
the amounts, it is unlikely that the Respondent would use the word 
``we.'' Based on the Respondent's testimony that it was his practice to 
maintain a contemporaneous record of administered medication on a paper 
towel that was then routinely discarded, and the absence of any 
conceivable motivation on the part of the staff members to fabricate 
such a seemingly innocuous detail (at least to them) of standard 
operating procedure, coupled with what appeared to be genuine confusion 
(not defensiveness) in their demeanor when asked about the subject, the 
Respondent's account of this process is less credible than the account 
of his former employees. The Government's expert, Dr. Becker, testified 
that in an office setting, auxiliaries of the practitioner routinely 
make these entries in the sedation logs, but he did not indicate 
whether it was based exclusively on the word of the practitioner or on 
their own personal observations. Tr. 146-47. The credible evidence 
supports the testimony supplied by Crockett and Tetzloff that they were 
tasked with recording the amounts of medication dictated by the 
Respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ In addition to the testimony of Tetzloff and Crockett, this 
version of events is consistent with the account provided by another 
employee, Peg Herner, in her conversation with DI Brinks. Tr. 456.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The sedation logs that were noticed and initially provided by the 
Respondent was another aspect of this case that did not reflect well on 
his credibility. The Respondent testified that separate logs were 
generated and maintained at Norwalk and Avon,\69\ but a consolidated 
version was provided to the tribunal. Resp't Ex. A (ID). Whether the 
Respondent's account of who completed the sedation logs or the account 
provided by his former employees is credited, no one who testified at 
the hearing suggested that multiple pages of entries were 
simultaneously prepared or maintained, yet the version of the logs 
initially provided by the Respondent was so replete with duplication 
that a modified version with the duplications culled out was prepared 
by his counsel after the commencement of the hearing. Resp't Ex. A-1; 
Tr. 703-05, 713-14. Additionally, although the sedation log pages 
contained an internal capacity to designate them as belonging to 
Norwalk, Avon, or another office, the pages provided did not designate 
any location. Resp't Ex. A-1; Tr. 756-57. The Respondent testified that 
as a result of Brinks' visit, he took the sedation logs and the 
medication from Avon to Norwalk, but when pressed on why there were so 
many duplicates among the sedation log pages, the Respondent stated 
that his office staff (specifically, ``the front desk people'') \70\ 
prepared the logs and that he ``rel[ied] on other people to help [him] 
me try to keep track of this.'' Tr. 697-700. Since DEA already knew the 
Respondent kept two sets of logs, consolidating them into one, 
disorganized version would accomplish no reasonable purpose. 
Puzzlingly, the Respondent's counsel then attempted to shift 
responsibility for the duplicates to staff at his law office. Tr. 701. 
It would simply make no sense that the clerical staff at counsel's 
office would spontaneously supplement the sedation logs provided by 
their client with multiple copies of randomly selected pages. Likewise, 
the fact that the version brought to the hearing had entries that were 
not initially presented to DI Brinks, and those additions are not 
readily apparent from the documents,\71\ also casts doubt on their 
reliability. Paradoxically, the Respondent's version of who bears the 
responsibility of a plethora of duplicate records is the more plausible 
account, although it reflects poorly on his credibility, his 
recordkeeping, or both. In an acknowledgement of this reality, the 
Respondent ultimately conceded that the responsibility of the 
preparation of the logs as they were provided ``falls to [him].'' Tr. 
703.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ Tr. 694.
    \70\ Tr. 703.
    \71\ Tr. 591-92.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During his testimony, when the Respondent was asked to provide an 
account of what is required of a registrant ``[b]ased on what you've 
learned'' from DI Brinks' testimony, he replied as follows:

    I understand what [Brinks is] saying that every syringe I've got 
left over, I guess I've got to package it up and send it to either 
the Pharmacy Board or have the Pharmacy Board come or send it to 
[Brinks'] office in Cleveland, as I understand it now.''

Tr. 709. Thus, by the Respondent's account, he has first learned of his 
disposal obligations as a registrant as he sat at his own revocation 
hearing and guesses that he is required to send it to an appropriate 
place for disposal. See also, Tr. 776. Remarkably, although served in 
August 2010 with an OSC which alleges, inter alia, that he has been 
improperly disposing of controlled substance without notifying DEA, the 
Respondent testified that his practice has not altered the manner in 
which it has been disposing of residual controlled substances (to wit, 
by squirting it down the drain without DEA approval), and did so as 
recently as the

[[Page 72402]]

week before the hearing. Tr. 762-64, 777-78. More remarkable still, is 
the Respondent's testimony that, although he has stopped storing 
controlled substances at Avon, he continues to administer controlled 
substances there, despite the fact that it has never been a registered 
COR location. Tr. 764-66. When asked why he has persisted in this 
conduct, notwithstanding the current charges, the Respondent explained 
that he finds proper disposal ``to be very laborious.'' Tr. 775-76. 
Respondent also testified that every dentist he knows disposes of 
substances in a similar way and that, therefore he ``didn't know if 
that [regulation] really pertained to me.'' Tr. 780-81.
    The issue of the Respondent's credibility was a mixed bag. As 
discussed at length, supra, the Respondent's answers were 
intermittently inconsistent, implausible, and periodically lacking in 
detail. There were some issues, such as his background, education, and 
mental health issues, where his testimony had sufficient indicia of 
reliability to be credited, and there were other matters, several of 
which were in conflict with other evidence, where his version of events 
must be found to be less than completely credible.
    Additional facts required for a resolution of the issues in this 
matter are set forth below.

The Analysis

    Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4) (2006), the Administrator \72\ is 
permitted to revoke a COR if persuaded that the registrant ``has 
committed such acts as would render * * * registration under section 
823 * * * inconsistent with the public interest * * *.'' The following 
factors have been provided by Congress in determining ``the public 
interest'':
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ This authority has been delegated pursuant to 28 CFR 
0.100(b) and 0.104 (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) The recommendation of the appropriate State licensing board or 
professional disciplinary authority.
    (2) The [registrant's] experience in dispensing, or conducting 
research with respect to controlled substances.
    (3) The [registrant's] conviction record under Federal or State 
laws relating to the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of 
controlled substances.
    (4) Compliance with applicable State, Federal or local laws 
relating to controlled substances.
    (5) Such other conduct which may threaten the public health and 
safety. 21 U.S.C. 823(f) (2006 & Supp. III 2010).
    ``[T]hese factors are considered in the disjunctive.'' Robert A. 
Leslie, M.D., 68 FR 15227, 15230 (2003). Any one or a combination of 
factors may be relied upon, and when exercising authority as an 
impartial adjudicator, the Administrator may properly give each factor 
whatever weight she deems appropriate in determining whether a 
registration should be rejected. Morall v. DEA, 412 F.3d 165, 173-74 
(D.C. Cir. 2005); JLB, Inc., d/b/a Boyd Drugs, 53 FR 43945, 43947 
(1988); David E. Trawick, D.D.S., 53 FR 5326, 5327 (1988); see also 
Joy's Ideas, 70 FR 33195, 33197 (2005); David H. Gillis, M.D., 58 FR 
37507, 37508 (1993); Henry J. Schwarz, Jr., M.D., 54 FR 16422, 16424 
(1989). Moreover, the Administrator is ``not required to make findings 
as to all of the factors * * *.'' Hoxie v. DEA, 419 F.3d 477, 482 (6th 
Cir. 2005); see also Morall, 412 F.3d at 173-74. The Administrator is 
not required to discuss consideration of each factor in equal detail, 
or even every factor in any given level of detail. Trawick v. DEA, 861 
F.2d 72, 76 (4th Cir. 1988) (the Administrator's obligation to explain 
the decision rationale may be satisfied even if only minimal 
consideration is given to the relevant factors and remand is required 
only when it is unclear whether the relevant factors were considered at 
all). The balancing of the public interest factors ``is not a contest 
in which score is kept; the Agency is not required to mechanically 
count up the factors and determine how many favor the Government and 
how many favor the registrant. Rather, it is an inquiry which focuses 
on protecting the public interest * * *.'' Jayam Krishna-Iyer, M.D., 74 
FR 459, 462 (2009).
    In an action to revoke a registrant's COR, the DEA has the burden 
of proving that the requirements for revocation are satisfied. 21 CFR 
1301.44(e) (2011). The Government may sustain its burden by showing 
that the Respondent has committed acts inconsistent with the public 
interest.\73\ Jeri Hassman, M.D., 75 FR 8194, 8235-36 (2010). Once DEA 
has made its prima facie case for revocation of the registrant's COR, 
the burden of production then shifts to the Respondent to present 
sufficient mitigating evidence to assure the Administrator that he or 
she can be entrusted with the responsibility commensurate with such a 
registration and that revocation is not appropriate. Steven M. 
Abbadessa, D.O., 74 FR 10077, 10078, 10081 (2009); Medicine Shoppe-
Jonesborough, 73 FR 364, 387 (2008); Samuel S. Jackson, D.D.S., 72 FR 
23848, 23853 (2007); Morall, 412 F.3d at 174; Humphreys v. DEA, 96 F.3d 
658, 661 (3d Cir. 1996); Shatz v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 873 F.2d 1089, 
1091 (8th Cir. 1989); Thomas E. Johnston, 45 FR 72311, 72312 (1980). 
Further, ``to rebut the Government's prima facie case, [the Respondent] 
is required not only to accept responsibility for [the established] 
misconduct, but also to demonstrate what corrective measures [have 
been] undertaken to prevent the reoccurrence of similar acts.'' Jeri 
Hassman, M.D., 75 FR at 8236. Normal hardships to the practitioner and 
even to the surrounding community that are attendant upon the lack of 
registration are not relevant considerations. Linda Sue Cheek, M.D., 76 
FR 66972, 66973 (2011); Abbadessa, 74 FR at 10078; see also Gregory D. 
Owens, D.D.S., 74 FR 36751, 36757 (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ The Agency's conclusion that past performance is the best 
predictor of future performance has been sustained on review in the 
courts, Alra Labs. v. DEA, 54 F.3d 450, 452 (7th Cir. 1995), as has 
the Agency's consistent policy of strongly weighing whether a 
registrant who has committed acts inconsistent with the public 
interest has accepted responsibility and demonstrated that he or she 
will not engage in future misconduct. Hoxie, 419 F.3d at 483; Ronald 
Lynch, M.D., 75 FR 78745, 78749 (2010) (Respondent's attempts to 
minimize misconduct held to undermine acceptance of responsibility); 
George Mathew, M.D., 75 FR 66138, 66140, 66145, 66148 (2010); East 
Main Street Pharmacy, 75 FR 66149, 66165 (2010); George C. Aycock, 
M.D., 74 FR 17529, 17543 (2009); Abbadessa, 74 FR at 10078; Krishna-
Iyer, 74 FR at 463; Medicine Shoppe, 73 FR at 387.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the burden of proof at this administrative hearing level is a 
preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, see Steadman v. SEC, 450 U.S. 
91, 100-01 (1981), the Administrator's factual findings will be 
sustained on review to the extent they are supported by ``substantial 
evidence.'' Hoxie, 419 F.3d at 481. And while ``the possibility of 
drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence'' does not limit 
the Administrator's ability to find facts on either side of the 
contested issues in the case. Shatz, 873 F.2d at 1092; Trawick, 861 
F.2d at 77, all ``important aspect[s] of the problem,'' such as a 
Respondent's defense or explanation that runs counter to the 
Government's evidence, must be considered. Wedgewood Vill. Pharmacy v. 
DEA, 509 F.3d 541, 549 (D.C. Cir. 2007); Humphreys, 96 F.3d at 663. The 
ultimate disposition of the case must be in accordance with the weight 
of the evidence, not simply supported by enough evidence to justify, if 
the trial were to a jury, a refusal to direct a verdict when the 
conclusion sought to be drawn from it is one of fact for the jury. 
Steadman, 450 U.S. at 99 (internal quotation marks omitted).
    Regarding the exercise of discretionary authority, the courts have 
recognized that gross deviations from past agency precedent must be 
adequately supported, Morall, 412 F.3d at 183, but mere unevenness in

[[Page 72403]]

application does not, standing alone, render a particular discretionary 
action unwarranted. Chein v. DEA, 533 F.3d 828, 835 (D.C. Cir. 2008) 
(citing Butz v. Glover Livestock Comm. Co., 411 U.S. 182, 188 (1973)), 
cert. denied, ---- U.S. ----, 129 S. Ct. 1033, 1033 (2009). It is well-
settled that since the Administrative Law Judge has had the opportunity 
to observe the demeanor and conduct of hearing witnesses, the factual 
findings set forth in this recommended decision are entitled to 
significant deference, Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 
496 (1951), and that this recommended decision constitutes an important 
part of the record that must be considered in the Administrator's 
decision, Morall, 412 F.3d at 179. However, any recommendations set 
forth herein regarding the exercise of discretion are by no means 
binding on the Administrator and do not limit the exercise of that 
discretion. 5 U.S.C. 557(b) (2006); River Forest Pharmacy, Inc. v. DEA, 
501 F.2d 1202, 1206 (7th Cir. 1974); Attorney General's Manual on the 
Administrative Procedure Act 8 (1947).

Factors 1 and 3: The Recommendation of the Appropriate State Licensing 
Board or Professional Disciplinary Authority; and Any Conviction Record 
Under Federal or State Laws Relating to the Manufacture, Distribution, 
or Dispensing of Controlled Substances

    In this case, it is undisputed that the Respondent holds a valid 
and current state license to practice medicine in Ohio. Although the 
Government introduced evidence that the Ohio Dental Board has 
previously placed the Respondent's state medical privileges on a period 
of suspension that was completed without complication, the matter was 
unrelated to the Respondent's obligations as a DEA registrant and not 
relevant here. Tr. 391-92, 394-96; see Judulang v. Holder, 132 S.Ct. 
476, 556 U.S. ---- (2011) (invalidating Board of Immigration Appeals 
decision making practice where the ``rule [was] unmoored from the 
purposes and concerns of the immigration laws.''). Although Ms. Reitz, 
from the Ohio Dental Board, testified that there is an ongoing Board 
investigation into matters in common with these proceedings,\74\ the 
record contains no evidence of a recommendation regarding the 
Respondent's medical privileges related to these issues by any 
cognizant state licensing board or professional disciplinary authority. 
The fact that an investigation by state authorities is pending is 
neither supportive of revocation nor antithetical to it. That a state 
has not acted against a registrant's medical license is not dispositive 
in this administrative determination as to whether continuation of a 
registration is consistent with the public interest. Patrick W. 
Stodola, M.D., 74 FR 20727, 20730 (2009); Jayam Krishna-Iyer, 74 FR at 
461. It is well-established Agency precedent that a ``state license is 
a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for registration.'' Leslie, 
68 FR at 15230; John H. Kennedy, M.D., 71 FR 35705, 35708 (2006). Even 
the reinstatement of a state medical license does not affect the DEA's 
independent responsibility to determine whether a registration is in 
the public interest. Mortimer B. Levin, D.O., 55 FR 9209, 8210 (1990). 
The ultimate responsibility to determine whether a registration is 
consistent with the public interest has been delegated exclusively to 
the DEA, not to entities within state government. Edmund Chein, M.D., 
72 FR 6580, 6590 (2007), aff'd, Chein v. DEA, 533 F.3d 828 (D.C. Cir. 
2008), cert. denied, ---- U.S. ----, 129 S. Ct. 1033 (2009). Congress 
vested authority to enforce the CSA in the Attorney General, not state 
officials. Stodola, 74 FR at 20375. While Respondent contends that the 
lack of board action weighs against revocation, Resp't Brief at 15, 
Agency precedent establishes that, where the record contains no 
evidence of a recommendation by a state licensing board, such absence 
does not weigh for or against a determination as to whether 
continuation of the Respondent's DEA certification is consistent with 
the public interest. See Ronie Dreszer, M.D., 76 FR 19434, 19444 (2011) 
(``[T]he fact that the record contains no evidence of a recommendation 
by a state licensing board does not weigh for or against a 
determination as to whether continuation of the Respondent's DEA 
certification is consistent with the public interest.''). Accordingly, 
Factor One does not weigh for or against revocation in this matter. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ Tr. 392-409, 412, 422-23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the third factor (convictions relating to the 
manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of controlled substances), the 
record in this case does not contain evidence that the Respondent has 
been convicted of a crime related to the manufacture, distribution, or 
dispensing of controlled substances. DEA administrative proceedings are 
non-punitive and ``a remedial measure, based upon the public interest 
and the necessity to protect the public from those individuals who have 
misused controlled substances or their DEA COR, and who have not 
presented sufficient mitigating evidence to assure the [Administrator] 
that they can be trusted with the responsibility carried by such a 
registration.'' Jackson, 72 FR at 23853; Leo R. Miller, M.D., 53 FR 
21931, 21932 (1988). Where evidence in a particular case reflects that 
the Respondent has acquired convictions relating to the manufacture, 
distribution, or dispensing of controlled substances, those convictions 
must be carefully examined and weighed in the adjudication of whether 
the issuance of a registration is in the public interest. 21 U.S.C. 
823(f).
    Although the standard of proof in a criminal case is more stringent 
than the standard required at an administrative proceeding, and the 
elements of both federal and state crimes relating to controlled 
substances are not always co-extensive with conduct that is relevant to 
a determination of whether registration is within the public interest, 
evidence that a registrant has been convicted of crimes related to 
controlled substances is a factor to be evaluated in reaching a 
determination as to whether he or she should be entrusted with a DEA 
certificate. While Respondent contends that the lack of convictions 
should weigh in his favor, Resp't Posth'g Brf. at 19, the probative 
value of an absence of any evidence of criminal prosecution, even if 
conceded as relevant arguendo, is perforce diminished by the myriad of 
considerations that are factored into a decision to initiate, pursue, 
and dispose of criminal proceedings by Federal, State, and local 
prosecution authorities. See Robert L. Dougherty, M.D., 76 FR 16823, 
16833 n.13 (2011); Dewey C. Mackay, M.D., 75 FR 49956, 49973 (2010) 
(``[W]hile a history of criminal convictions for offenses involving the 
distribution or dispensing of controlled substances is a highly 
relevant consideration, there are any number of reasons why a 
registrant may not have been convicted of such an offense, and thus, 
the absence of such a conviction is of considerably less consequence in 
the public interest inquiry.'') (citing Jayam Krishna-Iyer, M.D., 74 FR 
459, 461 (2009); Edmund Chein, M.D., 72 FR 6580, 6593 n.22 (2007), 
aff'd, Chein v. DEA, 533 F.3d 828 (D.C. Cir. 2008), cert. denied, ---- 
U.S. ----, 129 S. Ct. 1033 (2009)); Ladapo O. Shyngle, M.D., 74 FR 
6056, 6057 n.2 (2009).
    Accordingly, consideration of the evidence of record under the 
first and third factors neither supports the Government's argument for 
revocation nor militates against it.

[[Page 72404]]

Factors 2 and 4: Experience in Dispensing Controlled Substances and 
Compliance With Applicable State, Federal, or Local Laws Relating to 
Controlled Substances

    In this case, the gravamen of the Government's case relates to the 
allegations that the Respondent: (1) Failed to comply with the CSA's 
registration requirements; (2) failed to adhere to the CSA's 
recordkeeping and security requirements and was unable to account for 
both shortages and overages of controlled substances; and (3) dispensed 
controlled substances to himself for illegitimate purposes.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ The present record is bereft of competent evidence to 
support this third factual allegation. The Respondent's erratic 
behavior was well-documented in the record, as were the IV marks on 
his hands and arms. The Respondent's explanation that the suspect 
marks were the product of some sort of hands-on IV experience by 
chronically untalented student dentists was more than just somewhat 
undermined by the blood and marks on the backs of his hands that 
were observed by his staff on a morning where he was inexplicably 
late for patients, and not teaching at Case Western Reserve. That 
the IV marks were the product of his large Newfoundland was about as 
unpersuasive as his ``I'm a picker'' theory. The evidence of record 
(enhanced by the Respondent's testimony) doubtless creates a 
suspicion that there was something more afoot than his offered 
explanations, but the Agency precedent on the subject has been 
commendably clear that ``under the substantial evidence test, the 
evidence must `do more than create a suspicion of the existence of 
the fact to be established.' '' Alvin Darby, M.D., 75 FR 26993, 
26999, n.31 (2010) (citing NLRB v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping 
Co., 306 U.S. 292, 300 (1939).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding Factor 2, in requiring an examination of a registrant's 
experience in dispensing controlled substances, Congress manifested an 
acknowledgement that the qualitative manner and the quantitative volume 
in which a registrant has engaged in the dispensing of controlled 
substances, and how long he or she has been in the business of doing 
so, are significant factors to be evaluated in reaching a determination 
as to whether he or she should be entrusted with a DEA COR. In some 
cases, viewing a registrant's actions against a backdrop of how he has 
performed activity within the scope of the certificate can provide a 
contextual lens to assist in a fair adjudication of whether continued 
registration is in the public interest.
    Evidence that a practitioner may have conducted a significant level 
of sustained activity within the scope of the registration for a 
sustained period can be a relevant and correct consideration, which may 
be accorded due weight. The registrant's knowledge and experience 
regarding the rules and regulations applicable to practitioners also 
may be considered. See Volusia Wholesale, 69 FR69409, 69410 (2004) 
(List I case).\76\ However, the Agency has taken the reasonable 
position that this factor can be outweighed by acts held to be 
inconsistent with the public interest. Jayam Krishna-Iyer, 74 FR at 
463; see also Jeri Hassman, M.D., 75 FR 8194, 8235 (2010) 
(acknowledging Agency precedential rejection of the concept that 
conduct which is inconsistent with the public interest is rendered less 
so by comparing it with a respondent's legitimate activities which 
occurred in substantially higher numbers); Paul J. Cargine, Jr., 63 FR 
51592, 51560 (1998) (``[E]ven though the patients at issue are only a 
small portion of Respondent's patient population, his prescribing of 
controlled substances to these individuals raises serious concerns 
regarding [his] ability to responsibly handle controlled substances in 
the future.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ In Cynthia M. Cadet, M.D., 76 FR 19450, 19450 n.1 (2011), 
the Agency declined to adopt the List I experience analysis for 
practitioners charged with intentional diversion. Thus far, Agency 
precedent has left open the door to this form of evidence where 
intentional diversion has not been established. Compare 21 U.S.C. 
823(h) (List I section mandating consideration of ``any past 
experience of the applicant in the manufacture and distribution of 
chemicals,'') (emphasis added) with 21 U.S.C. 823(f) (practitioner 
section mandating consideration of ``[t]he applicant's experience in 
dispensing, or conducting research with respect to controlled 
substances.); see U.S. v. Tinklenberg, 131 S.Ct. 2007, 2019-20 
(2011) (``Identical words used in different parts of a statute are 
presumed to have the same meaning absent indication to the 
contrary.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Experience which occurred prior or subsequent to proven allegations 
of malfeasance may be relevant. Evidence that precedes proven 
misconduct may add support to the contention that, even acknowledging 
the gravity of a registrant's transgressions, they are sufficiently 
isolated and/or attenuated that adverse action against his registration 
is not compelled by public interest concerns. Likewise, evidence 
presented by the Government that the proven allegations are congruous 
with a consistent past pattern of poor behavior can enhance the 
Government's case.
    In a similar vein, conduct which occurs after proven allegations 
can shed light on whether a registrant has taken steps to reform and/or 
conform his or her conduct to appropriate standards. Contrariwise, a 
registrant who has persisted in incorrect behavior, or made attempts to 
circumvent Agency directives, even after being put on notice, can 
diminish the strength of its case. Novelty, Inc., 73 FR 52689, 52703 
(2008), aff'd, 571 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2009); Southwood Pharm., Inc., 
72 FR 36487, 36503 (2007); John J. Fotinopoulous, 72 FR 24602, 24606 
(2007).
    In Jayam Krishna-Iyer, 74 FR at 463, DEA acknowledged the reality 
that even a significant and sustained history of uneventful practice 
under a DEA certificate can be offset by proof that a registrant has 
committed acts inconsistent with the public interest. Id. Even, 
``evidence that a practitioner has treated thousands of patients does 
not negate a prima facie showing that the practitioner has committed 
acts inconsistent with the public interest.'' Id. The Agency, in its 
administrative precedent, has further curtailed the scope of Factor 2. 
The Agency's current view regarding Factor 2 is that, while evidence of 
a registrant's experience handling controlled substances may be 
entitled to some weight in assessing whether errant practices have been 
reformed, where the evidence of record raises intentional or reckless 
actions on the part of the registrant, such evidence is entitled to no 
weight where a practitioner fails to acknowledge wrongdoing in the 
matters before the Agency. Cynthia M. Cadet, M.D., 76 FR 19450 n.3 
(2011); Roni Dreszer, M.D., 76 FR 19434 n.3 (2011); Michael J. Aruta, 
M.D., 76 FR 19420 n.3 (2011); Jacobo Dreszer, M.D., 76 FR 19386-87 n.3 
(2011). This reasonable approach accepts the unavoidable logic that a 
transgression can only be rationally styled as an aberration when it is 
acknowledged by the actor as a transgression for which remorse is 
demonstrated.
    The Respondent argues that his professional experience supports 
favorable consideration under Factor 2. Resp't Posth'g Brf. at 16-19. 
Indeed, on the present record, it is undisputed that the Respondent has 
uneventfully practiced dentistry for over two decades, is a periodontic 
specialist, has published numerous scholarly articles in his field, and 
was sufficiently accomplished in his profession that he has served as a 
professor and clinical director Case Western Reserve School of Dental 
Medicine. Resp't Ex. E; Tr. 655-56. While the Respondent's level of 
professional achievement is undeniably impressive, he has offered no 
affirmative evidence regarding his experience dispensing controlled 
substances from peers, co-workers, or even himself. Still, his 
professional experience and contributions to his field have been 
considered in this recommended decision.
    Regarding Factor 4, Sections 822(e) and 1301.12 require that a 
registrant maintain ``a separate registration * * * at each principal 
place of business or professional practice where the

[[Page 72405]]

applicant manufactures, distributes, or dispenses controlled substances 
or list I chemicals.'' This separate registration requirement has been 
called ``an essential requirement of DEA's diversion control program.'' 
Preventing the Accumulation of Surplus Controlled Substances at Long 
Term Care Facilities, 70 FR 25462, 25463 (2005) (``Long Term Care''). 
In its prehearing statement, the Government alleged that Respondent 
``administered controlled substances to patients from his Avon dental 
practice,'' but did not obtain a registration for the Avon location. 
Gov't PHS, at 7. Paragraph 5 of the OSC also alleged that Respondent 
``distributed controlled substances including fentanyl, diazepam and 
midazolam * * * to an unregistered location in violation of 21 CFR 
Sec.  1307.11.'' \77\ OSC, at ] 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ The CSA provides that ``[t]he term `distribute' means to 
deliver * * * a controlled substance or a listed chemical.'' 21 
U.S.C. 802(a)(10). The term ``deliver,'' in turn, is defined as 
``the actual, constructive, or attempted transfer of a controlled 
substance or a listed chemical, whether or not there exists an 
agency relationship.'' 21 U.S.C. 802(a)(8) (emphasis added). No 
authority has been cited which would stand for the proposition that 
a practitioner ``distributes'' controlled substances when he moves 
controlled substances from one of his offices to another. Rather, it 
seems that, under the CSA and its implementing regulations, 
controlled substances are distributed between persons, and not 
locations. See 21 CFR 1307.11-12 (Regulating distribution of 
controlled substances between parties without mention of location). 
Accordingly, the Government's charge brought under Sec.  1307.11--
that the Respondent distributed controlled substances improperly--is 
without merit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The evidence of record establishes that Respondent maintained two 
dental offices: An office in Norwalk, where Respondent maintained his 
DEA registration; and an office in Avon, Ohio. Tr. 155-56, 221, 451-53. 
It appears that he practiced out of the Avon office once or twice per 
week. Tr. 156, 261. It is undisputed that controlled substances were, 
for a period of time, stored at Avon Office and that Respondent does 
not have a DEA registration for the Avon location. It is also 
undisputed that Respondent has regularly administered controlled 
substances for sedation at the Avon Office, and that he continues to do 
so. Tr. 764, Resp't Ex. M. Thus, it is clear that Respondent has 
administered controlled substances at a location that is unregistered, 
and has thus violated sections 822(e) and 1301.12.\78\ Furthermore, 
insofar as the Respondent continues to administer controlled substances 
at the Avon Office, it appears that Respondent remains in flagrant 
violation of this regulation.\79\ Even apart from the reality that the 
Respondent, as a DEA registrant is responsible for understanding his 
obligations under the clear language of the relevant regulations, he 
has been given direct notice that his Avon Office location must be 
registered, by the initiation of these proceedings and a full, 
contested hearing on the matter; yet the Respondent doggedly refuses to 
bring himself into compliance. He has not sought to obtain a 
registration for the Avon Office and has not stopped administering 
controlled substances there as a regular part of his professional 
practice. Hence, in the face of his refusal to obey the law, 
consideration of this factor, even standing alone, persuasively and 
conclusively balances in favor of revocation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ Through counsel in his Posthearing Brief, the Respondent 
acknowledges that dispensing in Avon without a valid COR was in 
violation of the law. Resp't Posth'g Brf. at 17, 20.
    \79\ As discussed, supra, through counsel in his Posthearing 
Brief, the Respondent acknowledges that dispensing in Avon without a 
valid COR was in violation of the law. Resp't Posthearing Brf. at 
17, 20. Interestingly though, the Respondent's Posthearing Brief 
also contends that ``he discontinued storing drugs at his Avon 
location in order to be in compliance with the regulations.'' Resp't 
Posthearing Brf. at 3. This position, consistent as it may be with 
the posture the Respondent took on this matter during his testimony, 
is unsupported in the law. Tr. 765. DEA regulations clearly 
establish that all professional practices at which controlled 
substances are distributed must have their own DEA registration. 21 
CFR 1301.12. A narrow exception to this requirement applies only 
insofar as: (1) The practitioner has a valid DEA registration in the 
same state as the second location; (2) the practitioner does not 
store controlled substances at the second location; and (3) the 
practitioner does not administer controlled substances as a regular 
part of the professional practice at the second location. 21 CFR 
1301.12(b)(3). The Respondent testified that IV sedation is a 
``critical component'' of his practice, and that he conducted 
procedures administering controlled substances up to the week prior 
to the hearing. Tr. 660, 764. Under these circumstances (even apart 
from the Respondent's through-counsel concession on this issue), the 
Respondent is clearly administering controlled substances is a 
regular part of his Avon practice, and therefore, must be separately 
registered under the regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the registration violations, the Government also 
alleges that Respondent failed to secure controlled substances properly 
at the Avon Office, in violation of 21 CFR 1301.75(b). ALJ Ex. 1. With 
regard to security, 21 CFR 1301.71(a) provides, in relevant part, that 
``[a]ll applicants and registrants shall provide effective controls and 
procedures to guard against theft and diversion of controlled 
substances. In order to determine whether a registrant has provided 
effective controls against diversion, the Administrator shall use the 
security requirements set forth in Sec. Sec.  1301.72-1301.76 as 
standards for the physical security controls and operating procedures 
necessary to prevent diversion.'' While the security provisions of 
sections 1301.72 through 1301.76 are used as standards to determine 
compliance with section 1301.71(a), the language of each of these 
sections is phrased in mandatory terms. See e.g., 21 CFR 1301.75(a) 
(``Controlled substances listed in Schedule I shall be stored in a 
securely, locked, substantially constructed cabinet.'') (emphasis 
added); 21 CFR 1301.76(a) (``The registrant shall not * * *'') 
(emphasis added). Thus, while compliance with the security provisions 
is a consideration under 21 CFR 1301.71(a), violation of any of the 
relevant security requirements in sections 1301.72-76 will be an 
independent consideration under Factor Four.
    Section 1301.75(b) provides, in relevant part, that ``[c]ontrolled 
substances listed in Schedules II, III, IV, and V shall be stored in a 
securely locked, substantially constructed cabinet. However, pharmacies 
and institutional practitioners may disperse such substances throughout 
the stock of noncontrolled substances in such a manner as to obstruct 
the theft or diversion of the controlled substances.'' The security 
requirements of section 1301.75 are designed ``to prevent the unlawful 
diversion of * * * drugs.'' Jerry Neil Rand, M.D., 61 FR 28895, 28897 
(1996). Thus, a reasonable reading of the regulations would compel a 
registrant entrusted with the care of controlled substances to ensure 
that when the controlled substances are left unattended, they must be 
placed in a container meeting the requirements of section 1301.75. See 
D-Tek Enterprises, 56 FR 28926, 28926 (1991) (``21 CFR 1301.75 requires 
that all Schedule I and II controlled substances be kept in a securely 
locked, substantially constructed cabinet.'') (emphasis added); see 
also Merriam-Webster Dictionary (Defining ``kept'' as ``to cause to 
remain in a given place, situation or condition.'').
    Here, the testimony establishes that, on numerous occasions, 
supplies of controlled substances were left in gray, shoebox-sized bins 
on the counters of the sterilization room in the Avon Office. 
Specifically, Ms. Tetzloff and Ms. Crockett testified that they would 
leave the gray bins in the open while preparing for patients in the 
morning. Tr. 157-58, 233-34. While true that the sterilization room was 
not readily accessible to patients standing by in the waiting room, a 
counter is not a locked cabinet. The regulations, which specify that 
controlled substances be stored in locked containers, are designed to 
provide both security and accountability

[[Page 72406]]

in the maintenance of a closed regulatory system for controlled 
substances. Jerry Neil Rand, M.D., 61 FR at 28897. Where accountability 
is concerned, the system must be as concerned with the accountability 
of health professionals with access to office spaces as it is with 
potential access by the patients waiting for treatment. It is clear 
that the controlled substances were not left in securely locked, 
substantially constructed cabinets, as required by the regulations. 21 
CFR 1301.75. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the conclusion 
that Respondent violated the security requirement set forth in section 
1301.75, and this factor militates in favor of revocation.
    To effectuate the dual goals of conquering drug abuse and 
controlling both legitimate and illegitimate traffic in controlled 
substances, ``Congress devised a closed regulatory system making it 
unlawful to manufacture, distribute, dispense, or possess any 
controlled substance except in a manner authorized by the CSA.'' 
Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 13 (2005). Consistent with the 
maintenance of that closed regulatory system, accurate and reliable 
records are an obvious bedrock safeguard that is essential to ensure 
the integrity of the closed regulatory system. A truly closed system 
requires not only that certain records and inventories be kept by all 
those registrants who either generate or take custody of controlled 
substances in any phase of the distribution chain until they reach the 
ultimate user, but that those documents be subject to periodic 
inspection and ready retrieval for that purpose. Registrants, such as 
the Respondent, who are authorized to dispense controlled substances 
are required to keep such records, and to maintain those records in a 
manner that is ``readily retrievable,'' upon demand of those DEA 
officials charged with conducting inspections. See 21 CFR 1304.04(g) & 
(f)(2) (2011); see 21 CFR 1304.03 (requiring recordkeeping set forth in 
Sec.  1304.04 for dispensing physicians). Readily retrievable is 
defined in the regulations as ``records kept * * * in such a manner 
that they can be separated out from all other records in a reasonable 
time * * * '' 21 CFR 1300.01(b)(38).
    The Government alleged that DI Brinks conducted a regulatory 
inspection on the Respondent's practice on December 21, 2009 and found 
multiple regulatory violations. ALJ Ex. 5 at 6. It need hardly be 
restated that the audit computation results as offered by DI Brinks at 
the hearing were profoundly problematic to say the least, and cannot be 
used to support a finding of substantial evidence of anything. However, 
the record does credibly establish that the Respondent, for his part, 
produced no purchase records, and was able to furnish Brinks with only 
three Form 222s over the course of a two-year period, which, even based 
on a cursory examination of the sedation logs,\80\ was a fraction of 
what should have been available. Tr. 444, 446-48, 639-40. Of that 
paltry number, one was incomplete. Tr. 451. Notwithstanding the 
Respondent's regular practice of ``wasting'' residual medication, he 
was unable to produce any Form 41s. Tr. 443, 449-50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ As discussed at length, supra, the sedation logs that were 
provided to DI Brinks differed with those provided at the hearing. 
Those records provided at the hearing were replete with multiple 
duplications and transpositions of the quantities counted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the present record, every health professional who provided 
evidence on the topic, including the Respondent, himself, is of the 
opinion that the amounts of controlled-substance medication 
administered by the Respondent to the patients depicted in the sedation 
logs is high. It was the view of the Government's expert, Dr. Becker, 
that the amounts administered would have resulted in unconsciousness 
and other complications, and that to the extent that the higher amounts 
were based on addressing sedation-resistant patients, that this 
temporally-limited sample contained more such resistant patients than 
he has encountered in a lifetime of practice. Interestingly, in his 
testimony, the Respondent did not dispute that the amounts were high, 
but offered that he is a specialist who deals in difficult cases, and 
that it could have been that the patients (even though there were quite 
a few in a small window of time) could have been medication resistant 
for reasons that he hypothesized could have been present. The 
Respondent's argument that he is a specialist and gets complicated 
cases is unpersuasive because his specialty is in periodontics, not 
sedation-resistant patients. His argument that these patients could all 
have been medication resistant is undermined by any efforts on the 
Respondent's part to introduce evidence to establish medication 
resistance based on any patient in issue, even though he is in 
possession of the patient charts. As discussed, supra, a scholarly 
discussion among health professionals as to what choices, levels and 
combinations of medication(s) achieve optimum results is a discussion 
for a different forum and beyond the proper jurisdiction of DEA and 
this forum to evaluate. Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 274 (2006). 
The issue here is diversion, and this tribunal (and this Agency) can 
have no reasonable view as to whether reasonable minds can, should, or 
do differ on the issue of whether the administered doses were out of 
line with accepted medical practice. That said, the Government's 
expert, Dr. Becker, provided credible, persuasive, and unrefuted 
testimony that the amounts of medication employed by the Respondent as 
reflected in the sedation logs he supplied would likely have resulted 
in unconsciousness. The Respondent's testimony that none of his sedated 
patients were ever unconscious is likewise credible. With the poor 
state of the Respondent's controlled substance records, it is not 
possible to conclusively determine whether the high levels of 
controlled substance medications were administered as noted. The 
results of the audit conducted by DEA regarding the Respondent's 
recordkeeping demonstrated sufficient inattention to maintaining 
required documentation that his records were not reliable. The 
accountability concerns credibly conveyed by Crockett and Tetzloff in 
their testimony were borne of this same unreliability in the state of 
the records. Reliable records are a key aspect of maintaining a closed 
system, and this aspect of the Respondent's practice impacts negatively 
on consideration of Factor 4.
    Finally, it is noteworthy that Respondent concedes that he 
regularly disposed of controlled substances without notifying the DEA, 
in violation of the governing regulations. See 21 CFR 1307.21(a) 
(Registrants must notify regional Special Agent in Charge before 
disposing of controlled substances). Respondent also testified that, 
notwithstanding the DEA administrative proceedings pending against his 
COR, he continues to follow this practice, essentially because he feels 
that other professionals in his field do it as well.\81\ Tr. 709, 762-
64, 776-78. A defense of ``other people are doing it too'' is generally 
no more persuasive in administrative enforcement proceedings than it is 
in the defense of a traffic violation, however, this case contains the 
arguably different wrinkle that every witness who presented evidence on 
the issue from each party is in agreement that squirting or ``wasting'' 
residual, unused amounts of controlled substances into the drain is 
common practice among registrants. Tr. 55-58,

[[Page 72407]]

100-01, 105, 631; Resp't Ex. J. This forum is without jurisdiction (or 
inclination) to question the wisdom of the prior-notification 
requirements applicable to controlled substance disposal. While the 
issue of a common practice which may be knowingly and routinely ignored 
by the Agency \82\ may present an interesting legal issue in another 
case where an adequate record on the subject has been developed, under 
the circumstances presented here, the Respondent's unwillingness to 
cease this disposal practice in the face of actual notice by the Agency 
militates against entrusting him with a DEA registration under Factor 
4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ This posture is likewise assumed by the Respondent in his 
Posthearing Brief. Resp't Post H'ring Brf. at 10.
    \82\ This issue was not sufficiently developed on the present 
record to support a finding that DEA has made a determination to 
eschew enforcement of this provision. Indeed the charges in the 
present OSC counter such a position in the strongest terms possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, consideration of Factors 2 and 4 militate in favor of 
the revocation of the Respondent's COR.

Factor 5: Such Other Conduct Which May Threaten the Public Health and 
Safety

    The fifth statutory public interest factor directs consideration of 
``[s]uch other conduct which may threaten the public health and 
safety.'' 21 U.S.C. 823(f)(5) (emphasis supplied). Existing Agency 
precedent has long held that this factor encompasses ``conduct which 
creates a probable or possible threat (and not only an actual [threat]) 
to public health and safety.'' Dreszer, 76 FR at 19434 n.3; Aruta, 76 
FR at 19420 n.3; Boshers, 76 FR 19403 n.4; Dreszer, 76 FR at 19386-87 
n.3. Agency precedent has generally embraced the principle that any 
conduct that is properly the subject of Factor Five must have a nexus 
to controlled substances and the underlying purposes of the CSA. 
Terese, Inc., d/b/a/Peach Orchard Drugs, 76 FR 46843, 46848 (2011); 
Tony T. Bui, M.D., 75 FR 49979, 49989 (2010) (prescribing practices 
related to a non-controlled substance such as human growth hormone may 
not provide an independent basis for concluding that a registrant has 
engaged in conduct which may threaten public health and safety); but 
see Paul Weir Battershell, N.P., 76 FR 44359, 44368 n.27 (2011) (a 
registrant's non-compliance with the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act may 
be considered on the narrow issue of assessing a respondent's future 
compliance with the CSA).
    Similar ``catch all'' language is employed by Congress in the CSA 
related to the Agency's authorization to regulate controlled substance 
manufacturing and List I chemical distribution, but the language is by 
no means identical. 21 U.S.C. 823(d)(6), (h)(5). Under the language 
utilized by Congress in those provisions, the Agency may consider 
``such other factors as are relevant to and consistent with the public 
health and safety.'' Id. (emphasis supplied). In Holloway Distributors, 
72 FR 42118, 42126 (2007), the Agency held this catch all language to 
be broader than the language directed at practitioners under ``other 
conduct which may threaten the public health and safety'' utilized in 
21 U.S.C. 823(f)(5). In Holloway, the Agency stated that regarding the 
List I catch all:

    [T]he Government is not required to prove that the 
[r]espondent's conduct poses a threat to public health and safety to 
obtain an adverse finding under factor five. See T. Young, 71 [FR] 
at 60572 n.13. Rather, the statutory text directs the consideration 
of ``such other factors as are relevant to and consistent with the 
public health and safety.'' 21 U.S.C. Sec.  823(h)(5). This standard 
thus grants the Attorney General broader discretion than that which 
applies in the case of other registrants such as practitioners. See 
id. Sec.  823(f)(5) (directing consideration of ``[s]uch other 
conduct which may threaten the public health and safety'').

72 FR at 42126.\83\ Thus, the Agency has recognized that, while the 
factor five applicable to List I chemical distributors--21 U.S.C. 
823(h)(5)--encompasses all ``factors,'' the factor five applied to 
practitioners--21 U.S.C. 823(f)(5)--considers only ``conduct.'' 
Furthermore, because section 823(f)(5) only implicates ``such other 
conduct,'' it necessarily follows that conduct considered in factors 
one through four may not be considered at factor five.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ In Bui, the Agency clarified that ``an adverse finding 
under [Factor Five did not require a] showing that the relevant 
conduct actually constituted a threat to public safety.'' 75 FR 
49888 n.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed, supra, the Government has alleged and established 
that the Respondent disposed of controlled substances without procuring 
the prior DEA approval required in the regulations. The manner of 
disposal here, to wit, squirting the controlled substances into the 
drain, and thus, the sewage and water treatment system is conduct that 
could arguably have public safety implications. Because the public 
safety aspect of this conduct was not factually developed at the 
hearing, it is not necessary to reach this issue, or the issue as to 
whether the ultimate destination of the ``wasted'' controlled 
substances constitutes other conduct separate and apart from the act of 
disposing without prior DEA authorization. Accordingly, there being no 
other conduct alleged (or proven) which may threaten the public health 
and safety, Factor Five weighs neither for nor against revocation.

Recommendation

    All relevant acts alleged by the Government and established in the 
record relate to the Respondent's registered location in Norwalk and 
his unregistered office in Avon. Although no misconduct related to the 
Respondent's registered location in Milwaukee have been alleged or 
proved, these proceedings relate to whether he ``has committed such 
acts as would render his registration under [21 U.S.C. 823] 
inconsistent with the public interest,'' (a question answered in the 
affirmative here) and whether, as a matter of discretion, the 
Respondent should continue to be entrusted by the Agency with 
responsibilities as a DEA registrant in all locations that are the 
subject of the OSC.
    As set forth above, Factors 1, 3 and 5 do not weigh for against 
revocation. Under Factor Four, substantial evidence supports a finding 
that Respondent: (1) maintained an unregistered professional practice, 
in violation of 21 U.S.C. 822(e) and 21 CFR 1301.12; (2) failed to 
secure controlled substances properly, in violation of 21 CFR 
1301.75(b); and (3) failed to dispose of controlled substances 
properly, in violation of 21 CFR 1307.21(a). These acts bear some 
resemblance to those found in Daniel Koller, D.V.M., 71 FR 66975, 
66982-83 (2006).
    In Koller, the Agency found that the respondent had: (1) Not stored 
controlled substances in a securely locked, substantially constructed 
cabinet, in violation of 21 CFR 1301.75(b); (2) failed to maintain 
proper DEA Form 222s, in violation of 21 CFR 1304.22(c); (3) 
distributed controlled substances to an unregistered practitioner, in 
violation of 21 CFR 1307.11(a); and (4) maintained an unregistered 
professional practice, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 822(e) and 21 CFR 
1301.12(a). 71 FR at 66982-83. The Agency was unimpressed with Koller's 
testimony that in his view it was `an absurdity' to claim that he 
violated the law by taking controlled substances [from a registered 
location to an unregistered location] because he had a DEA registration 
for his San Diego Residence [and] could `take those drugs anywhere he 
wanted.''' Id. at 66982. In denying Respondent's application for 
registration, the Agency held that ``Respondent's repeated violations 
of the CSA provide ample grounds to deny his application. Moreover, 
Respondent's attitude leaves [the Agency] with the firm impression 
that, if given the

[[Page 72408]]

opportunity, he will violate the Act again.'' Koller, 71 FR at 66983.
    Like the registrant in Koller, the Respondent's repeated and 
continuing violations in the face of--and even motivated by--his 
disagreement with his obligations as a registrant, undermine the 
confidence that can be placed in him to execute his responsibilities in 
compliance with the law. See Koller, D.V.M., 71 FR at 66983 
(``Respondent's repeated violations of the CSA provide ample grounds to 
deny his application.'').
    Following the guidance of Koller, it is clear that the Government 
has sustained its burden of showing that Respondent committed acts 
inconsistent with the public interest. Accordingly, the burden shifts 
to the Respondent to show that he can be entrusted with a DEA 
registration. As discussed above, ``to rebut the Government's prima 
facie case, [the Respondent] is required not only to accept 
responsibility for [the established] misconduct, but also to 
demonstrate what corrective measures [have been] undertaken to prevent 
the reoccurrence of similar acts.'' Jeri Hassman, M.D., 75 FR at 8236. 
The present record does not present transgressions on a level that 
could not have been overcome by a credible and persuasive acceptance of 
responsibility coupled with a cogent plan for coming into compliance 
and avoiding future violations; but inasmuch as neither demonstration 
was convincingly offered by the Respondent, under current Agency 
precedent, he cannot prevail.
    Here, while Respondent has nominally \84\ acknowledged that his 
conduct was wrongful, Tr. 763, 765, he has failed to outline any steps 
he has taken to prevent the reoccurrence of the infractions. Generally, 
actions speak louder than words, and the Respondent's actions speak 
volumes about his level of responsibility acceptance. By his own 
admission, the Respondent continues to dispose of controlled substances 
down his office drains without DEA authorization, and continues to 
administer drugs at his unregistered Avon location. Tr. 764. The 
Respondent has also failed to outline any steps which he has taken (or 
even intends to take) that would tend to prevent controlled substances 
from being left unsecured during mornings at the unregistered Avon 
Office. Clear on the evidence presented here, is that far from 
demonstrating acceptance and contrition, the Respondent has violated 
the law, disagrees with the law, and has continued to violate the law 
even after the Agency served him with an OSC. Thus, in this case, the 
Respondent has failed to sustain his burden of showing that he can be 
entrusted with the responsibilities incumbent upon a DEA registrant. 
Koller, 71 FR at 66983; Jeri Hassman, M.D., 75 FR at 8236.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ Though the Respondent acknowledged wrong doing, he also 
testified, in essence, that ``everybody does it.'' These 
ministrations echo the righteous protests put forth in Koller; and 
are no more compelling here. Accordingly, the evidence here, as in 
Koller, leaves ``the firm impression that, if given the opportunity, 
[Respondent] will violate the [CSA] again.'' Koller, 71 FR at 66983.
    \85\ In its Posthearing Brief the Government contends that ``the 
agency has recently admitted and considered testimony with regard to 
community impact [of revocation].'' Gov't Posth'g Brf. at 33. 
However, the Agency has recently once again re-affirmed its view 
that ``community impact evidence is not relevant in determining 
whether to * * * revoke an existing registration under the various 
authorities provided in 21 U.S.C. 824(a).'' Cheek, M.D., 76 FR at 
66972. Accordingly, community impact has not played a role in this 
recommended decision. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Where, as here, the Government has made out a prima facie case that 
the Respondent has committed acts that render registration inconsistent 
with the public interest, Agency precedent has firmly placed 
acknowledgement of guilt and acceptance of responsibility as conditions 
precedent to merit the granting or continuation of status as a 
registrant. Hoxie v. DEA, 419 F.3d 477, 483 (6th Cir. 2005); Ronald 
Lynch, M.D., 75 FR 78745, 78749 (Respondent's attempts to minimize 
misconduct held to undermine acceptance of responsibility); George 
Mathew, M.D., 75 FR 66138, 66140, 66145, 66148 (2010); George C. 
Aycock, M.D., 74 FR 17529, 17543 (2009); Steven M. Abbadessa, D.O., 74 
FR 10077, 10078 (2009); Jayam Krishna-Iyer, M.D., 74 FR 459, 463 
(2009); Medicine Shoppe-Jonesborough, 73 FR 364, 387 (2008). As 
explained above, Respondent has not rebutted the Government's prima 
facie case to the extent that he can avoid the sanction of a revocation 
of his registrations. Accordingly, the Respondent's Certificate of 
Registrations should be revoked, and any pending renewal applications 
should be denied.

    Dated: December 21, 2011.

John J. Mulrooney II,
Chief Administrative Law Judge.

[FR Doc. 2012-29333 Filed 12-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P