Roderick Lee Mitchell, M.D.; Decision and Order, 3625-3626 [2014-01159]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 14 / Wednesday, January 22, 2014 / Notices After considering the written submissions on review and the record in this investigation, the Commission has determined to affirm-in-part and reverse-in-part the final ID of the ALJ and to terminate the investigation with a finding of violation of Section 337. Specifically, the Commission has found the following respondents in violation: Precision Measurement International LLC of Westland, Michigan; Sino Legend (Zhangjiagang) Chemical Co., Ltd. of Zhangjiagang City, China; Sino Legend Holding Group, Inc. of Kowloon, Hong Kong; Sino Legend Holding Group Ltd. of Hong Kong; Red Avenue Chemical Co. Ltd. of Shanghai, China; Shanghai Lunsai International Trading Company of Shanghai City, China; Red Avenue Group Limited of Kowloon, Hong Kong; and Sino Legend Holding Group Inc. of Majuro, Marshall Islands. After considering the submissions of the parties on remedy, the public interest, and bonding, the Commission has determined to issue a limited exclusion order for a period of ten (10) years prohibiting the unlicensed importation of rubber resins made using any of the SP–1068 Rubber Resin Trade Secrets that are manufactured by, for, or on behalf of violating respondents or any of their affiliated companies, parents, subsidiaries, licensees, contractors, or other related business entities, or their successors or assigns. The Commission has determined that the public interest factors of 19 U.S.C. 1337(d) do not preclude the issuance of a remedy. The Commission has further determined that the covered products may be imported during the period of Presidential review pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j) under bond in the amount of 19% of entered value. The authority for the Commission’s determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210). emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES Dated: January 15, 2014. By order of the Commission. Lisa R. Barton, Acting Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2014–01109 Filed 1–21–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:00 Jan 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act On January 10, 2014, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed consent decree with the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota in the lawsuit entitled United States v. U.S. Borax Inc., Civil Action No. 0:14– cv–00118–DSD. The proposed consent decree fully resolves claims of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (‘‘EPA’’) against U.S. Borax Inc. (‘‘Borax’’) for response costs, civil penalties, and potential treble damages under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C. 9601–9675, with respect to the South Minneapolis Residential Soil Contamination Superfund Site (‘‘Site) in Minneapolis, Minnesota. A complaint, which was filed at the same time that the United States lodged the proposed consent decree, alleges that Borax was an operator of the Site during the period of disposal of hazardous substances and, as such, is liable for response costs under Section107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a). Further, the complaint alleges that Borax is liable for civil penalties and damages under Sections 106(b) and 107(c)(3) of CERCLA, 32 U.S.C. 9606(b), 9607(c)(3), because it failed to comply with a unilateral administrative order issued by EPA to undertake response actions at the Site. Under the proposed consent decree, Borax shall make a lump sum payment of $1,225,000 to EPA as reimbursement of response costs, and it shall make a lump sum payment of $25,000 for civil penalties and damages. Both payments shall be made to the United States within 30 days of entry of the Consent Decree. The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to United States v. U.S. Borax Inc., D.J. Ref. No. 90–11–3–09719/3. All comments must be submitted no later than thirty (30) days after the publication date of this notice. Comments may be submitted either by email or by mail: PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 To submit comments: 3625 Send them to: By email. By mail pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov. Assistant Attorney General, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, D.C. 20044–7611. During the public comment period, the proposed consent decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site: http:// www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_ Decrees.html. We will also provide a paper copy of the proposed consent decree upon written request and payment of reproduction costs. Please mail your request and payment to: Consent Decree Library, U.S. DOJ— ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044–7611. Please enclose a check or money order for $7.5 (30 pages at 25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. Maureen Katz, Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division. [FR Doc. 2014–01129 Filed 1–21–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–15–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Roderick Lee Mitchell, M.D.; Decision and Order On June 10, 2013, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to Show Cause to Roderick Mitchell, M.D. (Respondent), of Daingerfield, Texas. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Respondent’s DEA Certificate of Registration AM1375179, which authorizes him to dispense controlled substances in schedules II through V as a practitioner, and the denial of any pending applications to renew or modify his registration, on the ground that he ‘‘do[es] not have authority to handle controlled substances in the State of Texas,’’ the State in which he is registered with DEA. Show Cause Order, at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)). As the factual basis for the action, the Show Cause Order alleged that on November 30, 2012, ‘‘[t]he Texas Medical Board issued a [f]inal [o]rder . . . which immediately revoked [Respondent’s] license to practice E:\FR\FM\22JAN1.SGM 22JAN1 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with NOTICES 3626 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 14 / Wednesday, January 22, 2014 / Notices medicine in the State of Texas.’’ Id. The Show Cause Order also alleged that Respondent’s Texas Department of Public Safety Controlled Substances Registration had ‘‘expired on January 23, 2013.’’ Id. The Order thus alleged that Respondent is ‘‘currently without authority to handle controlled substance in the State of Texas.’’ Id. Finally, the Show Cause Order notified Respondent of his right to either request a hearing or to submit a written statement while waiving his right to a hearing, the procedure for electing either option, and the consequence of failing to elect either option. See id. at 2 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). On June 14, 2013, a DEA Diversion Investigator (DI) and Task Force Officer (TFO) went to Respondent’s residence in an attempt to personally serve him with the Show Cause Order. GX 2, at 3. The DI and TFO identified themselves to the person who answered the door, and who, based on Respondent’s driver’s license photo, appeared to be the Respondent; however, the person denied that he was Respondent. Id. According to the DI, this person shouted to them, ‘‘[y’]all need to stop harassing me’’ and slammed the door shut. Id. at 4. Later that same day, the DI mailed two copies of the Show Cause Order to Respondent: one by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, the other by first class mail. Id. On June 17, Respondent received the mailing, as evidenced by both the signed return receipt card and a print-out from the U.S. Postal Services Track and Confirm Web page. GX 5, at 3–4. Moreover, on July 2, 2013, Respondent wrote a letter to the DEA Resident Office in Tyler, Texas and enclosed a copy of a New Mexico Controlled Substance Registration. GX 9, at 3–4. Therein, Respondent wrote: ‘‘This should clear up the issue of my ability to possess a DEA license. Please contact my attorney and I [sic] if this does not solve the problem of my possessing a DEA license.’’ Id. at 3. However, in the letter, Respondent did not request a hearing on the allegations of the Show Cause Order. See id. Thereafter, on October 9, 2013, the Government submitted a Request for Final Agency Action along with the Investigative Record it compiled. Based on Respondent’s failure to request a hearing, I find that he has waived his right to a hearing. See 21 CFR 1301.43(b). However, pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(c), Respondent’s July 2, 2013 letter has been ‘‘made a part of the record’’ and will be considered in this Decision. I make the following findings of fact. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:00 Jan 21, 2014 Jkt 232001 Findings Respondent is the holder of DEA Certificate of Registration AM1375179, which authorizes him to dispense controlled substances in schedules II through V, as a practitioner, at registered premises located in Daingerfield, Texas. GX 3, at 2. Respondent’s registration does not expire until January 31, 2015. Id. Respondent formerly held a medical license issued by the Texas Medical Board. However, on November 30, 2012, the Board issued a final order revoking Respondent’s medical license based on findings that he ‘‘failed to meet the standard of care and did not maintain adequate medical records.’’ GX 6, at 2– 3. On December 29, 2012, Respondent filed a motion for rehearing; however, on January 18, 2013, the Board denied the motion and the order of revocation became effective the same day. Id. at 2. Respondent also held a Texas Department of Public Safety Controlled Substances Registration. GX 7, at 2–3. However, on January 23, 2013, this registration expired. Id. Accordingly, I find that Respondent lacks authority under the laws of Texas to dispense controlled substances. Discussion Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under section 823 ‘‘upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license . . . suspended [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.’’ Moreover, DEA has repeatedly held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the State in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a practitioner’s registration. See James L. Hooper, 76 FR 71371, 71371 (2011) (citing Leonard F. Faymore, 48 FR 32886, 32887 (1983)), pet. for rev. denied, Hooper v. Holder, No. 11–2351, 2012 WL 2020079, at *2 (4th Cir. Jun. 6, 2012) (unpublished). This rule derives from the text of two provisions of the CSA. First, Congress defined ‘‘the term ‘practitioner’ [to] mean[] a . . . physician . . . or other person licensed, registered or otherwise permitted, by . . . the jurisdiction in which he practices . . . to distribute, dispense, [or] administer . . . a controlled substance in the course of professional practice.’’ 21 U.S.C. 802(21). Second, in setting the requirements for obtaining a PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 practitioner’s registration, Congress directed that ‘‘[t]he Attorney General shall register practitioners . . . if the applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices.’’ 21 U.S.C. 823(f). Because Congress has clearly mandated that a practitioner possess state authority in order to be deemed a practitioner under the Act, DEA has held repeatedly that revocation of a practitioner’s registration is the appropriate sanction when he is no longer authorized to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices medicine. See, e.g., Calvin Ramsey, 76 FR 20034, 20036 (2011); Sheran Arden Yeates, M.D., 71 FR 39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick A. Ricci, 58 FR 51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby Watts, 53 FR 11919, 11920 (1988). Here, the Government has put forward unrefuted evidence that Respondent’s Texas Medical License has been revoked and that his Texas controlled substance registration has expired. While Respondent submitted a copy of a state controlled substance registration issued by the State of New Mexico, the existence of this registration is immaterial because the DEA registration, which is the subject of the Order to Show Cause, authorizes him to dispense controlled substances in the State of Texas, where it is clear he is not authorized to dispense controlled substances and thus no longer meets the statutory definition of a practitioner under the Act. See 21 U.S.C. 802(21). Accordingly, I will order that Respondent’s Certificate of Registration be revoked and that any pending applications to renew or modify this registration be denied. Order Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a)(3), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104, I order that DEA Certificate of Registration AM1375179, issued to Roderick Lee Mitchell, M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. I further order that any pending application of Roderick Lee Mitchell, M.D., to renew or modify the aforesaid registration, be, and it hereby is, denied. This Order is effective February 21, 2014. Dated: January 15, 2014. Thomas M. Harrigan, Deputy Administrator. [FR Doc. 2014–01159 Filed 1–21–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–09–P E:\FR\FM\22JAN1.SGM 22JAN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 14 (Wednesday, January 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3625-3626]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01159]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Roderick Lee Mitchell, M.D.; Decision and Order

    On June 10, 2013, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to 
Show Cause to Roderick Mitchell, M.D. (Respondent), of Daingerfield, 
Texas. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Respondent's DEA 
Certificate of Registration AM1375179, which authorizes him to dispense 
controlled substances in schedules II through V as a practitioner, and 
the denial of any pending applications to renew or modify his 
registration, on the ground that he ``do[es] not have authority to 
handle controlled substances in the State of Texas,'' the State in 
which he is registered with DEA. Show Cause Order, at 1 (citing 21 
U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).
    As the factual basis for the action, the Show Cause Order alleged 
that on November 30, 2012, ``[t]he Texas Medical Board issued a [f]inal 
[o]rder . . . which immediately revoked [Respondent's] license to 
practice

[[Page 3626]]

medicine in the State of Texas.'' Id. The Show Cause Order also alleged 
that Respondent's Texas Department of Public Safety Controlled 
Substances Registration had ``expired on January 23, 2013.'' Id. The 
Order thus alleged that Respondent is ``currently without authority to 
handle controlled substance in the State of Texas.'' Id. Finally, the 
Show Cause Order notified Respondent of his right to either request a 
hearing or to submit a written statement while waiving his right to a 
hearing, the procedure for electing either option, and the consequence 
of failing to elect either option. See id. at 2 (citing 21 CFR 
1301.43).
    On June 14, 2013, a DEA Diversion Investigator (DI) and Task Force 
Officer (TFO) went to Respondent's residence in an attempt to 
personally serve him with the Show Cause Order. GX 2, at 3. The DI and 
TFO identified themselves to the person who answered the door, and who, 
based on Respondent's driver's license photo, appeared to be the 
Respondent; however, the person denied that he was Respondent. Id. 
According to the DI, this person shouted to them, ``[y']all need to 
stop harassing me'' and slammed the door shut. Id. at 4.
    Later that same day, the DI mailed two copies of the Show Cause 
Order to Respondent: one by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, 
the other by first class mail. Id. On June 17, Respondent received the 
mailing, as evidenced by both the signed return receipt card and a 
print-out from the U.S. Postal Services Track and Confirm Web page. GX 
5, at 3-4.
    Moreover, on July 2, 2013, Respondent wrote a letter to the DEA 
Resident Office in Tyler, Texas and enclosed a copy of a New Mexico 
Controlled Substance Registration. GX 9, at 3-4. Therein, Respondent 
wrote: ``This should clear up the issue of my ability to possess a DEA 
license. Please contact my attorney and I [sic] if this does not solve 
the problem of my possessing a DEA license.'' Id. at 3. However, in the 
letter, Respondent did not request a hearing on the allegations of the 
Show Cause Order. See id. Thereafter, on October 9, 2013, the 
Government submitted a Request for Final Agency Action along with the 
Investigative Record it compiled.
    Based on Respondent's failure to request a hearing, I find that he 
has waived his right to a hearing. See 21 CFR 1301.43(b). However, 
pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(c), Respondent's July 2, 2013 letter has 
been ``made a part of the record'' and will be considered in this 
Decision. I make the following findings of fact.

Findings

    Respondent is the holder of DEA Certificate of Registration 
AM1375179, which authorizes him to dispense controlled substances in 
schedules II through V, as a practitioner, at registered premises 
located in Daingerfield, Texas. GX 3, at 2. Respondent's registration 
does not expire until January 31, 2015. Id.
    Respondent formerly held a medical license issued by the Texas 
Medical Board. However, on November 30, 2012, the Board issued a final 
order revoking Respondent's medical license based on findings that he 
``failed to meet the standard of care and did not maintain adequate 
medical records.'' GX 6, at 2-3. On December 29, 2012, Respondent filed 
a motion for rehearing; however, on January 18, 2013, the Board denied 
the motion and the order of revocation became effective the same day. 
Id. at 2.
    Respondent also held a Texas Department of Public Safety Controlled 
Substances Registration. GX 7, at 2-3. However, on January 23, 2013, 
this registration expired. Id. Accordingly, I find that Respondent 
lacks authority under the laws of Texas to dispense controlled 
substances.

Discussion

    Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized 
to suspend or revoke a registration issued under section 823 ``upon a 
finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license . . . 
suspended [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no 
longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of 
controlled substances.'' Moreover, DEA has repeatedly held that the 
possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the 
laws of the State in which a practitioner engages in professional 
practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a 
practitioner's registration. See James L. Hooper, 76 FR 71371, 71371 
(2011) (citing Leonard F. Faymore, 48 FR 32886, 32887 (1983)), pet. for 
rev. denied, Hooper v. Holder, No. 11-2351, 2012 WL 2020079, at *2 (4th 
Cir. Jun. 6, 2012) (unpublished).
    This rule derives from the text of two provisions of the CSA. 
First, Congress defined ``the term `practitioner' [to] mean[] a . . . 
physician . . . or other person licensed, registered or otherwise 
permitted, by . . . the jurisdiction in which he practices . . . to 
distribute, dispense, [or] administer . . . a controlled substance in 
the course of professional practice.'' 21 U.S.C. 802(21). Second, in 
setting the requirements for obtaining a practitioner's registration, 
Congress directed that ``[t]he Attorney General shall register 
practitioners . . . if the applicant is authorized to dispense . . . 
controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he 
practices.'' 21 U.S.C. 823(f). Because Congress has clearly mandated 
that a practitioner possess state authority in order to be deemed a 
practitioner under the Act, DEA has held repeatedly that revocation of 
a practitioner's registration is the appropriate sanction when he is no 
longer authorized to dispense controlled substances under the laws of 
the State in which he practices medicine. See, e.g., Calvin Ramsey, 76 
FR 20034, 20036 (2011); Sheran Arden Yeates, M.D., 71 FR 39130, 39131 
(2006); Dominick A. Ricci, 58 FR 51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby Watts, 53 
FR 11919, 11920 (1988).
    Here, the Government has put forward unrefuted evidence that 
Respondent's Texas Medical License has been revoked and that his Texas 
controlled substance registration has expired. While Respondent 
submitted a copy of a state controlled substance registration issued by 
the State of New Mexico, the existence of this registration is 
immaterial because the DEA registration, which is the subject of the 
Order to Show Cause, authorizes him to dispense controlled substances 
in the State of Texas, where it is clear he is not authorized to 
dispense controlled substances and thus no longer meets the statutory 
definition of a practitioner under the Act. See 21 U.S.C. 802(21). 
Accordingly, I will order that Respondent's Certificate of Registration 
be revoked and that any pending applications to renew or modify this 
registration be denied.

Order

    Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 
824(a)(3), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104, I order that DEA 
Certificate of Registration AM1375179, issued to Roderick Lee Mitchell, 
M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. I further order that any pending 
application of Roderick Lee Mitchell, M.D., to renew or modify the 
aforesaid registration, be, and it hereby is, denied. This Order is 
effective February 21, 2014.

    Dated: January 15, 2014.
Thomas M. Harrigan,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2014-01159 Filed 1-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P