```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 23, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67092-67095]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33363]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 97-11]

Ronald D. Springel, M.D., Grant of Restricted Registration

    On January 28, 1997, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an 
Order to Show Cause to Ronald D. Springel, M.D., (Respondent) of 
Spokane, Washington, notifying him of an opportunity to show cause as 
to why DEA should not deny his application for registration as a 
practitioner under 21 U.S.C. 823(f), for reason that such registration 
would be inconsistent with the public interest.
    By letter dated February 24, 1997, Respondent, through counsel, 
timely filed a request for a hearing, and following prehearing 
procedures, a hearing was held in Seattle, Washington on July 15 and 
16, 1997, before Administrative Law Judge Gail A.

[[Page 67093]]

Randall. At the hearing, both parties called witnesses to testify and 
introduced documentary evidence. After the hearing, both sides 
submitted proposed fundings of fact, conclusions of law and argument. 
On October 6, 1997, Judge Randall issued her Opinion and Recommended 
Ruling, recommending that Respondent be granted a DEA Certificate of 
Registration subject to several restrictions that would remain in 
effect for three years from the effective date of the final order. On 
October 28, 1997, Respondent's counsel filed exceptions to the 
Administrative Law Judge's Opinion and Recommended Ruling, and on 
November 6, 1997, Judge Randall transmitted the record of these 
proceedings to the Acting Deputy Administrator.
    The Acting Deputy Administrator has considered the record in its 
entirety, and pursuant to 21 CFR 1316.67, hereby issues his final order 
based upon findings of fact and conclusions of law as hereinafter set 
forth. The Acting Deputy Administrator adopts, except as specifically 
noted below, the Opinion and Recommended Ruling of the Administrative 
Law Judge. His adoption is in no manner diminished by any recitation of 
facts, issues and conclusions herein, or of any failure to mention a 
matter of fact or law.
    The Acting Deputy Administrator finds that Respondent graduated 
from medical school in 1978, and is currently licensed to practice 
medicine in the State of Washington. In 1981 or 1982, while practicing 
in Pennsylvania, Respondent became addicted to drugs. Respondent 
obtained controlled substances for his own use, by having prescriptions 
filled that he had issued in names of other than his own. On August 17, 
1983, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere in the Lehigh County 
Court, to three misdemeanor counts of possession of a controlled 
substance and three felony counts of prescribing a controlled substance 
outside the course of his medical practice in violation of the laws of 
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Respondent was placed on probation 
without verdict and was ordered to surrender his DEA Certificate of 
Registration. Consequently, Respondent surrendered his previous DEA 
Certificate of Registration on August 26, 1983.
    On July 25, 1984, Respondent was convicted in the United States 
District Court for the District of Alaska, following his plea of guilty 
to two felony counts of attempting to knowingly acquire possession of a 
controlled substance by fraud in violation of 21 U.S.C. 843 and 846, 
and three counts of acquiring possession of a controlled substance by 
fraud in violation of 21 U.S.C. 843. The court sentenced Respondent to 
two years imprisonment with all but 75 days suspended, and then placed 
Respondent on probation for five years.
    On August 31, 1984, Respondent was convicted in the Superior Court 
for the State of Alaska of four felony counts related to the unlawful 
handling of controlled substances and one misdemeanor count of making 
an unsworn falsification of an application for a temporary permit to 
practice medicine in Alaska. Respondent was sentenced to five years 
probation. Thereafter, on September 5, 1984, Respondent's application 
for a medical license was denied by the Alaska State Medical Board.
    In 1984, Respondent underwent approximately 42 days of inpatient 
treatment for chemical dependency. Respondent then moved to the State 
of Washington, and in 1987, he suffered a relapse of his drug 
addiction, using drugs including heroin. During his relapse, Respondent 
was employed at a narcotic treatment program, where he unlawfully 
acquired approximately 35 milliliters of methadone, a Schedule II 
controlled substance. As a result, on August 26, 1988, Respondent was 
convicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District 
of Washington of one count of unlawful acquisition of a controlled 
substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. 843(a)(3), and was sentenced to one 
year imprisonment to be followed by two years of supervised release. In 
light of this conviction, on August 28, 1988, Respondent's probation 
based upon his conviction in the United States District Court for the 
District of Alaska was revoked and he was sentenced to three years 
imprisonment.
    As a result of his relapse Respondent's license to practice 
medicine in the State of Washington was summarily suspended on March 4, 
1988, by the Washington Board of Medical examiners (Washington Board). 
Thereafter, on August 1, 1988, the Washington Board revoked 
Respondent's Washington medical license and ordered that Respondent not 
petition for reinstatement of his license any earlier than 36 months 
from the effective date of the summary suspension order; that he 
successfully complete an inpatient treatment program; and that he 
remain drug and alcohol free for at least 12 months prior to his 
reinstatement. In addition, on September 27, 1988, Respondent's license 
to practice medicine in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was 
automatically suspended by the State Board of Medical Examiners due to 
his drug related convictions.
    Respondent went to two different treatment facilities, entering the 
second facility on March 17, 1988. He has remained drug-free and in 
recovery since that date. Respondent testified at the hearing in this 
matter that he has developed a strong support system, and that he 
continues to regularly attend 12-step self-help group meetings. In 
addition, Respondent completed a five year contract with the Washington 
Physicians Health Program (WPHP) in 1994, which consisted of five 
elements: total abstinence from alcohol and any other addicting 
chemical; attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous and/or Narcotics Anonymous 
meetings; behavioral monitoring; chemical monitoring; and work site 
monitoring for the first five years under contract. After successfully 
completing his contract, Respondent has remained in the program on a 
voluntary basis, and was asked by the WPHP board to serve on the 
advisory committee, representing the rest of the participants in the 
program before the board.
    In December of 1989, Respondent started a business which provided 
services to employers and employees to facilitate, among other things, 
compliance with drug-free workplace regulations. Over the years, this 
business endeavor has grown into six related enterprises which offer 
various services, to include employee assistance programs, occupational 
health services, drug-screen collection services, qualified medical 
review officers' services, and educational services to train employees 
and supervisors about the drug-free workplace regulatory requirements. 
The companies currently have approximately 2,000 clients in the Western 
United States, including the State of Washington.
    On April 18, 1991, the Washington Board reinstated Respondent's 
license to practice medicine in the State of Washington with 
restrictions, including that he shall not obtain a DEA registration to 
handle controlled substances. On November 4, 1994, Respondent was 
granted an unrestricted license in the State of Washington, following 
the Washington Board's finding that Respondent ``is not a risk to the 
public in his practice as a physician. . . .''
    At the hearing in this matter, numerous professional and/or 
personal associates and clients of Respondent either testified or 
submitted affidavits attesting to the high quality of services 
performed by Respondent and his companies; to Respondent's

[[Page 67094]]

distinguished reputation and character; and to their belief that the 
registration of Respondent to handle controlled substances poses no 
risk to the public or his patients. The Director of the WPHP testified 
that the chance of Respondent suffering another relapse is ``quite 
unlikely'' given that he had been drug-free and in recovery for over 
nine years at the time of the hearing.
    Respondent testified that he is now seeking a DEA registration 
because he cannot fully perform the occupational health aspect of his 
businesses without being able to prescribe controlled substances. In 
addition, he wants to volunteer as the back-up physician at a local 
narcotic treatment program, and would need to be able to handle 
controlled substances to effectively perform his duties. Finally, he 
believes that being granted a DEA Certificate of Registration would 
make him a complete physician and would recognize the fact that he is a 
``repaired'' physician.
    Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f), the Deputy Administrator may deny an 
application for a DEA Certificate of Registration if he determines that 
such registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. In 
determining the public interest, the following factors are considered:
    (1) The recommendation of the appropriate State licensing board or 
professional disciplinary authority.
    (2) The applicant's experience in dispensing, or conducting 
research with respect to controlled substances.
    (3) The applicant'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.
    These factors are to be considered in the disjunctive; the Deputy 
Administrator may rely on any one or a combination of factors and may 
give each factor the weight he deems appropriate in determining whether 
a registration should be revoked or an application for registration be 
denied. See Henry J. Schwarz, Jr., M.D., Docket No. 88-42, 54 FR 16,422 
(1989).
    Regarding factor one, it is undisputed that Respondent's 
application for a license to practice medicine in Alaska was denied in 
1984, and his medical license in Pennsylvania was suspended in 1988. It 
is also undisputed that while Respondent's license to practice medicine 
in the State of Washington was revoked in 1988, and then reinstated 
subject to restrictions in 1991, Respondent has possessed an 
unrestricted medical license in that state since 1994.
    Factors two and four, Respondent's experience in dispensing 
controlled substances and his compliance with applicable laws relating 
to controlled substances, are relevant in this proceeding. Respondent 
became addicted to drugs in the early 1980's. Respondent repeatedly 
violated both state and Federal laws by fraudulently obtaining 
controlled substances for his own use. In the early 1980's, he 
prescribed controlled substances using his previous DEA registration to 
acquire the drugs. While Respondent did receive extensive treatment in 
1984 for his admitted chemical dependency, he suffered a relapse in 
1987, abusing various drugs including heroin. In late 1987, Respondent 
unlawfully acquired methadone from a narcotic treatment program where 
he was working. Therefore, as Judge Randall concluded, ``the Government 
has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that in the 1980's, the 
Respondent unlawfully acquired, prescribed, and possessed controlled 
substances, as well as unlawfully consumed them.'' The Acting Deputy 
Administrator notes that there is no evidence in the record that 
Respondent ever unlawfully prescribed and/or dispensed controlled 
substances for anyone other than himself.
    As to factor three, it is undisputed that Respondent has been 
convicted on several occasions of controlled substances related 
offenses. In August 1983, he pled nolo contendere in the Commonwealth 
of Pennsylvania to three misdemeanor counts of illegal possession of a 
controlled substance, and to three felony counts of prescribing 
controlled substances outside the course of medical practice. In July 
1984, Respondent was convicted in the United States Court for the 
District of Alaska of five felony counts of obtaining a controlled 
substance by fraud, and in August 1984, Respondent was convicted in an 
Alaska state court of four felony counts relating to the unlawful 
handling of controlled substances and one misdemeanor count relating to 
the falsification of an application for a license to practice medicine 
in Alaska. Further, in August 1988, Respondent was convicted in the 
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington of 
one count of the unlawful acquisition of a controlled substance. As a 
result of these convictions, Respondent was incarcerated for a period 
of time.
    Finally, regarding factor five, Respondent has admitted to a long 
history of substance abuse in the 1980's. He abused his privilege as a 
DEA registrant to obtain the drugs, he stole methadone from his 
employer, and he abused heroin. Clearly, this conduct posed a threat to 
the public safety.
    The Acting Deputy Administrator concludes that based upon the 
foregoing, the Government has established a prima facie case for the 
denial of Respondent's application for a DEA Certificate of 
Registration. However, all of Respondent's unlawful conduct and his 
convictions stemmed from his drug addiction. Respondent testified that 
he has been drug-free since March 1988, and there is no evidence in the 
record of the contrary. In fact, the evidence presented by Respondent 
shows a strong commitment to continued recovery. Respondent continues 
to voluntarily participate in the WPHP, and the Director of the program 
testified that after over nine years of being drug-free, it is unlikely 
that Respondent will suffer a relapse of his drug abuse. Like Judge 
Randall, the Acting Deputy Administrator also finds it noteworthy that 
Respondent's business enterprises are centered around the detection and 
preventing of drug abuse in the workplace. Finally, the Acting Deputy 
Administrator finds significant the witness testimony and affidavits, 
offered on behalf of Respondent, attesting to his personal and 
professional integrity, and to his continued commitment to sobriety.
    The Administrative Law Judge recommended granting Respondent's 
application for a DEA Certificate of Registration, but also found 
persuasive the Government's argument that ``these multiple offenses are 
significant [enough] to warrant an extremely close look at any future 
registration for Respondent.'' Therefore, Judge Randall recommended 
that the following conditions and restrictions be placed upon 
Respondent's registration:
    ``1. That the Respondent maintain a log of all controlled substance 
prescriptions he issues. At a minimum, the log should indicate the date 
that the prescription was written, the name of the patient for whom it 
was written, and the name and dosage of the controlled substance(s) 
prescribed. The Respondent should maintain this log for a period of 
three years from the effective date of the final order. Upon request by 
the Special Agent in Charge of the DEA Field office in Seattle, or his 
designee, the Respondent shall submit or otherwise make reasonably 
available his prescription log for inspection.
    2. For three years after the effective date of the final order, the 
Respondent should continue his association with the WPHP, and, if for 
any reason the WPHP

[[Page 67095]]

no longer requires random urine screens, the Respondent shall continue 
these monthly screens at his own expense. The Respondent shall provide 
copies of the reports of the results of the screens upon reasonable 
request by DEA personnel.
    3. For three years after the effective date of the final order, 
regardless of the applicable Washington state law, the Respondent may 
not prescribe or dispense controlled substances to himself or to any 
members of his family. The only exception to this limitation is that 
the Respondent may possess and consume controlled substances which are 
medically necessary for his own use, and which he has obtained lawfully 
from another duly authorized physician.''
    The Acting Deputy Administrator agrees with the Administrative Law 
Judge that Respondent should be issued a DEA Certificate of 
Registration, but that some restrictions on his registration are 
warranted in light of his past substance abuse, and his use of his 
previous DEA registration to fraudulently obtain controlled substances.
    In his exceptions to Judge Randall's recommended ruling, Respondent 
contends that the proposed language of the second condition to be 
imposed on Respondent's registration, if granted, is ambiguous, since 
it requires that Respondent ``continue these monthly screens'' and he 
is not currently undergoing ``monthly'' urine screens. Respondent 
argues that he is currently participating in Phase III of the WPHP, 
which provides for random toxicology testing, but does not provide for 
monthly testing. Consequently, Respondent purposes that the restriction 
be rewritten to require that he continue his participation in Phase III 
of the WPHP, which includes random urine screens, for three years after 
the effective date of the final order. The Acting Deputy Administrator 
agrees with Respondent since the record does not indicate that 
Respondent is currently required to undergo monthly urine screens.
    Therefore, the Acting Deputy Administrator concludes that 
Respondent should be granted a DEA Certificate of Registration subject 
to the conditions as recommended by Judge Randall with slight 
modifications. Respondent's registration shall be subject to the 
following conditions for three years from the date of issuance of the 
registration:
    (1) Respondent shall maintain a log of all controlled substances 
that he prescribes. At a minimum, the log shall include the name of the 
patient, the date that the controlled substance was prescribed, and the 
name, dosage and quantity of the controlled substance prescribed. Upon 
request by the Special Agent in Charge of the Seattle DEA office, or 
his designee, Respondent shall submit or otherwise make available this 
prescription log for inspection.
    (2) Respondent shall continue his participation in Phase III of the 
Washington Physicians Health Program, including such random urine 
screens, meetings, and other requirements as mandated by the program. 
Respondent shall immediately notify the Special Agent in Charge of the 
Seattle DEA office, or his designee, of any urine screens found to be 
positive for the presence of controlled substances.
    (3) Respondent shall not prescribe or dispense any controlled 
substances to himself or to any members of his family, and shall only 
administer to himself those controlled substances legitimately 
dispensed or prescribed to him by another duly authorized practitioner.
    Accordingly, the Acting Deputy Administrator of the Drug 
Enforcement Administration, pursuant to the authority vested in him by 
21 U.S.C. 823 and 824, and 28 C.F.R. 0.100(b) and 0.104, hereby orders 
that the application for a DEA Certificate of Registration submitted by 
Ronald D. Springel, M.D., be, and it hereby is granted, subject to the 
above described restrictions. This order is effective January 22, 1998.

    Dated: December 15, 1997.
James S. Milford,
Acting Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-33363 Filed 12-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
```