5682 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Notices

(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., 54 FR

16422 (1989).

As to factor one, it is undisputed that

Respondent’s state veterinary license

was suspended for 24 months, with the

suspension stayed and his license

placed on probation subject to various

conditions. It is also undisputed that

Respondent entered into a Stipulation

with the state whereby he agreed to

enter into a contract with the WHPS.

However, his state license is now

unrestricted and he is authorized to

handle controlled substances in the

State of Washington. But as Judge

Bittner noted, ‘‘inasmuch as State

authorization is a necessary but not

sufficient condition for a DEA

registration, * * * this factor is not

determinative.’’

Regarding factor two, it is undisputed

that Respondent used his DEA

Certificate of Registration and official

order forms to obtain Schedule II

controlled substances which he then

abused himself for about a year in 1988

or 1989. However, this behavior was a

result of Respondent’s chemical

dependency for which he has received

treatment. He has not abused controlled

substances since 1990, and he has a

good support network in place to help

prevent any relapse. There is no other

evidence that Respondent has

improperly dispensed controlled

substances.

As to factor three, there is no evidence

that Respondent has ever been

convicted under State or Federal laws

relating to the manufacture,

distribution, or dispensing of controlled

substances.

Regarding factor four, there is

evidence in the record that Respondent

has failed to comply with applicable

laws relating to controlled substances.

By furnishing false information on his

applications for DEA registration,

Respondent violated 21 U.S.C.

843(a)(4)(A). By using DEA order forms

to obtain controlled substances for his

own use, Respondent violated 21 U.S.C.

828(e), and by dispensing controlled

substances for other than legitimate

medical purposes, Respondent violated

21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1). Further, Respondent

violated 21 CFR 1301.75(b) by failing to

maintain adequate physical security of

controlled substances. It also appears

from evidence in the record that

Respondent violated various provisions

of Washington state law.

As to factor five, other than

Respondent’s material falsification of

his applications for registration, there is

no evidence that Respondent has

engaged in any other conduct that may

threaten the public health and safety.

The Deputy Administrator agrees with

Judge Bittner’s conclusion that the

Government has made a prima facie

case that Respondent’s continued

registration would be inconsistent with

the public interest. Respondent used his

privileges as a DEA registrant to obtain

controlled substances to support his

chemical dependency, and he materially

falsified his 1992 and 1995 renewal

applications.

However, he has undergone treatment

for his chemical dependency and has

not abused controlled substances since

1990. Further, evidence in the record

suggests that there is little likelihood of

Respondent relapsing. The Deputy

Administrator finds it noteworthy that

Respondent first sought treatment for

his chemical dependency on his own

and not at the direction of another.

Judge Bittner also found it significant

that ‘‘there is no evidence that

[Respondent] improperly handled

controlled substances in any way since

1992, when he regained a DEA

registration.’’ However, the Deputy

Administrator can find no evidence in

the record that Respondent ever

completely lost his DEA privileges. But

it appears from the evidence in the

record that Respondent has had a DEA

registration since 1981. Therefore, the

Deputy Administrator finds it

significant that there is no evidence that

Respondent has improperly handled

controlled substances in any way since

1990.

Regarding the material falsification of

Respondent’s renewal applications, the

Deputy Administrator agrees with Judge

Bittner who noted that ‘‘Respondent

acknowledged that he falsified his

applications, he apparently regretted

that conduct, and I believe that he will

not repeat it.’’

Judge Bittner concluded ‘‘that the

evidence that Respondent has remained

drug free for more than eight years prior

to the hearing and is remorseful about

his prior behavior weighs in favor of

continuing his registration.’’ As a result,

Judge Bittner recommended that

Respondent’s DEA registration be

continued. The Deputy Administrator

agrees.

Accordingly, the Deputy

Administrator of the Drug Enforcement

Administration, pursuant to the

authority vested in him by 21 U.S.C. 823

and 824 and 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104,

hereby orders that DEA Certificate of

Registration AN1015331, previously

issued to Theodore Neujahr, D.V.M., be,

and it hereby is, continued and renewed

in Schedules II, IIN, IIIN, IV and V. This

final order is the final agency action for

appellant purposes pursuant to 21

U.S.C. 877.

Dated: January 18, 2000.

Donnie R. Marshall,

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 00–2534 Filed 2–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. 99–1]

Michael Alan Patterson, M.D.; Grant of

Restricted Registration

On September 23, 1998, the Deputy

Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA), issued an Order

to Show Cause to Michael Alan

Patterson, M.D. (Respondent) of

Memphis, Tennessee, notifying him of

an opportunity to show causes as to

why DEA should not deny his

application for registration as a

practitioner pursuant to 21 U.S.C.

823(f), for reason that his registration

would be inconsistent with the public

interest.

By letter dated October 22, 1998,

Respondent, through counsel, requested

a hearing on the issues raised by the

Order to Show Cause. Following

prehearing procedures, a hearing was

held in Nashville, Tennessee on March

10, 1999, before Administrative Law

Judge Gail A. Randall. At the hearing,

both parties called witnesses to testify

and introduced documentary evidence.

After the hearing, both parties submitted

proposed findings of fact, conclusions of

law and argument. On August 11, 1999,

Judge Randall issued her Recommended

Rulings, Findings of Fact, Conclusions

of Law, and Decision (Opinion),

recommending that Respondent’s

application for registration be granted

subject to various conditions. Neither

party filed exceptions to Judge Randall’s

Opinion, and on September 15, 1999,

Judge Randall transmitted the record of

these proceedings to the Deputy

Administrator.

The 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. This final order

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Notices 5683

replaces and supersedes the final order

issued on December 22, 1999, and

published at 64 FR 73,587 (December

30, 1999). The Deputy Administrator

adopts, with specifically noted

exceptions, the Recommended Rulings,

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law,

and Decision of the Administration Law

Judge. His adoption is in no manner

diminished by any recitation of facts,

issues or conclusions herein, or of any

failure to mention a matter of factor or

law.

The Deputy Administrator finds that

Respondent admits to a history of drug

and alcohol abuse, beginning with

marijuana and beer on the weekends as

a teenager. When Respondent entered

college in 1980, he used cocaine

sporadically after being introduced to

the drug by one of his brothers.

Respondent received his medical

degree in 1983, and from July 1983

through June 1986, Respondent was a

resident in family practice in Florida.

During his residency Respondent used a

DEA certificate of Registration issued to

him in Florida that expired on March

31, 1987. As a resident, his drug use

remained sporadic but became more

frequent.

In 1986, Respondent moved to

Mississippi to fulfill an obligation to the

National Health Service Corps.

Respondent obtained medical licenses

in both Mississippi and Tennessee.

Ultimately, Respondent was issued DEA

Certificate of Registration in both states.

In order to earn additional income,

Respondent also worked for an

emergency room service and for a

freestanding urgent care center from

1986 through 1989. During this time he

worked approximately 80 to 100 hours

per week. According to Respondent, in

1986 his drug use ‘‘progress[ed] to

heavy,’’ and the use of cocaine helped

him stay awake so he could continue

working.

Respondent testified that financial,

marital, and work-related stress

contributed to his drug use. He further

testified that he began staying out late

at night, if he returned home at all, and

he frequented topless clubs. He failed to

show up for work, and if he did show

up, he was too ‘‘crashed out’’ to be

productive. Eventually, Respondent’s

former wife notified his employer that

Respondent had a cocaine problem.

As a result, the then-medical director

the Tennessee Medical Foundation,

Physicians Health Program (PHP), set up

an intervention with Respondent, and

Respondent entered treatment on March

16, 19990. According to Respondent he

was very resistant to treatment at that

time and fought it ‘‘tooth and nail.’’

Respondent completed the four-month

treatment program in July or August

1990; however, he did not enter into an

ongoing contract with the treatment

center at that time.

After his treatment, Respondent

returned to work part-time at the

freestanding urgent care center, and

later in 1990, he began a second job

working full-time at a 24-hour minor

medical emergency center.

Additionally, in November or December

1991, Respondent began working at a

hospital center. Respondent’s employers

were aware of his drug abuse problems

and treatment.

In the spring or summer of 1991,

Respondent began drinking again, and

allowed his DEA registrations to expire.

Although he had been sent notices to

renew his registrations, Respondent

testified that he ‘‘avoid[ed] the mail’’

during this time because he owed debts

to several bill collectors. By January

1992, Respondent began using cocaine

and crack cocaine again. As a result of

his relapse, Respondent was fired from

the 24-hour minor medical emergency

center in March 1992.

Respondent was not aware that he

had let his DEA registrations lapse until

the hospital where he was working

requested a copy of his current DEA

registration. Respondent attempted to

renew his registration in Tennessee, but

he inadvertently sent the wrong form to

DEA with the fee. When the incorrect

form and money were returned to

Respondent, he spent the money on

cocaine and failed to renew his

registration. Since he still needed to

have a current registration to submit to

the hospital, Respondent’s thengirlfriend altered his expired DEA

Certificate of Registration to reflect a

1995 expiration date instead of the

actual 1991 expiration date. This forgery

resulted in the hospital terminating

Respondent’s employment on

September 15, 1992. At the hearing

Respondent testified that he was

abusing drugs and alcohol at the time of

the alteration of his Certificate of

Registration, and that ‘‘there’s no real

justification to give you, other than I

was sick and irresponsible.’’

Respondent’s substance abuse

worsened, and during this time he was

arrested and charged with the

misdemeanors of drunk driving,

reckless driving, public intoxication and

possession of drug paraphernalia.

Respondent pled guilty to two of the

charges. In addition, from the summer

of 1991 to November 1992, Respondent

prescribed controlled substances

without a valid registration and

exchanged prescriptions for discounts

on the cost of cocaine.

An investigation of Respondent began

in 1992 based upon information from a

confidential informant that she received

controlled substance prescriptions from

Respondent for no legitimate medical

reason. On February 16, 1993,

Respondent voluntarily met with law

enforcement personnel. At this time,

Respondent was currently undergoing

inpatient treatment at a halfway house

for his addiction. Respondent

cooperated and provided full disclosure

during this meeting, as well as

subsequent meetings.

The investigation of Respondent, as

well as his own admissions, revealed

that Respondent had written controlled

substance prescriptions to a number of

individuals for no legitimate medical

reason. He exchanged these

prescriptions for services to include

topless or private dances. He traded

cocaine for sex and private dances, and

he used cocaine and marijuana with

these dancers.

Respondent acknowledged his prior

behavior, his activity regarding his

relationship with these individuals, and

his unlawful prescribing of controlled

substances. Respondent has accepted

responsibility for his actions.

Subsequently, Respondent agreed to

cooperate with the local police

department. He provided a list of people

that he had written controlled substance

prescriptions to for no legitimate

medical purpose. He also provided the

names of individuals from whom he had

purchased drugs from in the past and

indicated from whom he thought he

could buy drugs from in the future.

Respondent agreed to work with the

local police department to make

telephone calls and contacts in an effort

to set up undercover buys for drugs.

Respondent was not very successful in

gaining evidence against others since it

was known that Respondent was in

trouble. Respondent’s cooperation with

the local police department continued

until August 1993.

Respondent entered treatment for a

second time in November 1992, this

time voluntarily. Respondent testified

that he realized that his first attempt at

treatment was ‘‘a half-hearted effort’’

and that at that time he was in denial

of his addiction. By the time of his

second attempt at treatment he had

essentially lost everything. He testified,

‘‘if I didn’t get into treatment at that

time, I really didn’t think I would be

here much longer.’’ Respondent was in

inpatient treatment for three weeks and

then continued to undergo inpatient

treatment at a halfway house for

impaired professionals until June 1993.

While in treatment, Respondent’s

Tennessee medical license expired on

5684 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Notices

December 31, 1992. Respondent did not

submit a renewal application for this

license until March 23, 1993 and did

not pay the license fee until May 11,

1993. Respondent continued to practice

medicine even though his license had

not been renewed. Respondent

explained that when he returned to

work in 1993, he thought his medical

license was in a ‘‘grace period.’’

After completing his treatment in June

1993, Respondent returned to work at

the 24-hour minor medical emergency

center and for the emergency room

service, both of which were aware of

Respondent’s prior drug treatments. On

his application for employment with the

emergency room service submitted on

September 29, 1993, Respondent

indicated that his privileges or

professional services at any hospital had

never been revoked, even though his

privileges at the hospital center had

been revoked in September 1992. At the

hearing, Respondent admitted that this

mistake was an oversight and that ‘‘[he]

had no reason to intentionally try and

mislead or lie on that application.’’

Respondent has maintained a contract

with the PHP since March 3, 1993. After

treatment, the PHP coordinates and

monitors physicians’ recovery process

for a minimum of two years. As part of

this contract with the PHP physicians

agree to attend weekly peer group

meetings and monthly meetings with

PHP personnel, to undergo random drug

testing, to attend Alcoholics

Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous

meetings, and to participate in

individualized therapy.

After fulfilling the terms of his initial

two-year contract with the PHP,

Respondent has continued to renew his

contract. Respondent has complied with

the terms of his contract.

As a result of Respondent’s past

behavior, the Tennessee Board of

Medical Examiners (Board) sought to

take action against Respondent’s

Tennessee medical license. Respondent

failed to appear for a scheduled hearing

before the Board on June 21, 1994.

According to Respondent he never

received notice from the Board that the

hearing was going to take place. As a

result, on June 22, 1994, the board

entered a Default Order revoking

Respondent’s Tennessee medical license

and assessing a $4,300 civil penalty.

The Board found among other things

that Respondent had lied on his

Tennessee medical license renewal form

and on his employment application

dated September 29, 1993, that he

engaged in unprofessional, dishonorable

or unethical conduct, that he was

habitually intoxicated which affected

his ability to practice medicine, and that

he dispensed controlled substances not

in the course of professional practice.

Respondent stopped practicing

medicine when he received written

notification in July 1994 of the Board’s

action.

Based upon his conduct in 1991 and

1992, Respondent was indicted on July

19, 1995, in the United States District

Court for the Western District of

Tennessee, and charged with 387 felony

counts related to his handling of

controlled substances. On November 18,

1996, Respondent pled guilty to 17

counts of the unlawful distribution of

controlled substances in violation of 21

U.S.C. 841(a)(1). On March 27, 1997,

Respondent was sentenced to three

years probation, 2,000 hours of

community service, and assessed a fine

of $850. As conditions of his probation,

Respondent is required to submit a

random drug screens and to meet

monthly with his probation officer. As

of the date of the hearing Respondent

had completed 1,500 to 1,600 hours of

his community service obligation and

had complied with all of the conditions

of his probation.

On July 1, 1995, Respondent began a

three-year psychiatry residency program

at the University of Tennessee. He was

selected for the position of Chief

Resident in psychiatry by his fellow

residents and faculty. During his

residency, Respondent used the

institutional DEA numbers of the

institutions where he worked as a

resident. No questions were ever raised

by any official or representative at the

University of Tennessee regarding

Respondent’s handling of controlled

substances.

After his indictment and while in his

residency program, Respondent assisted

DEA in undercover activities for close to

a year. Respondent’s assistance

produced four controlled substance

buys, two of which resulted in

convictions.

Effective October 6, 1997, the Board

reinstated Respondent’s medical

license, finding that ‘‘[t]he [Respondent]

has been monitored by the Tennessee

Medical Foundation’s Physician Health

Program and is currently in good

standing with the program. He

presented evidence of five (5) years of

sobriety.’’ The Board placed several

restrictions on Respondent’s medical

license including that he maintain an

affiliation with the PHP for five years to

include at least five unannounced drug

screens per year; that he only apply for

a DEA registration in Schedules III, IV

and V; and that he only practice in a

supervised setting under a licensed

physician acceptable to the Board until

his criminal probation is lifted, but for

not less than two years.

Respondent has been in compliance

with the Board’s restrictions. On

average, Respondent is tested for drugs

eight to ten times per year. According to

Respondent, he plans to maintain a

lifetime relationship with the PHP, not

just the five years imposed by the Board.

The medical director of the PHP

testified at the hearing that he has been

in frequent contact with Respondent for

over three and a half years. He believes

that Respondent’s prognosis for

continued recovery from his drug

addiction is excellent. The medical

director testified that he does not have

any reservations concerning

Respondent’s ability to handle

Schedules III, IV and V controlled

substances and that he ‘‘fully

support[s]’’ the granting of Respondent’s

application. However, both Respondent

and the medical director testified that

Respondent may benefit from a course

on the proper handling of controlled

substances.

Respondent testified that he has been

sober since November 6, 1992. He

further testified that he would pay

greater attention to detail about his

registration status, and the proper

maintenance and renewal of his DEA

and state registration ‘‘won’t be a

problem in the future at any time.’’ He

feels that he is ‘‘much more

responsible’’ now. Respondent is

ashamed of his previous conduct. He

testified however that ‘‘today I know

that I’m not the same person that I was

six, seven, eight years ago * * * who

was sick and addicted.’’ Respondent

testified that he understands the

consequences of a relapse.

Since 1998, Respondent has been

employed at a treatment facility where,

for the most part, he practices addiction

medicine. Presently, if Respondent’s

treatment of a patient requires the use

of controlled substances, one of

Respondent’s supervisors writes the

prescription. The Board has approved

Respondent’s employment at the

treatment facility and any change in

employment would require additional

Board approval.

On October 28, 1997, Respondent

executed the application for registration

that is the subject of these proceedings.

Respondent applied to be registered in

Schedules III, IV and V and provided

his home address as his ‘‘Proposed

Business Address.’’ Respondent testified

that he does not intend to handle

controlled substances at his residence

and that the address on his application

should be modified to reflect the

address at the treatment facility where

he is currently employed.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Notices 5685

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 the

registration would be inconsistent with

the public interest. Section 823(f)

requires that the following factors be

considered in determining the public

interest:

(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 denied. See

Henry J. Schwarz, Jr., M.D., 54 FR 16422

(1989).

As to factor one, the Board revoked

Respondent’s Tennessee medical license

in June of 1994. However, three years

later the Board reinstated Respondent’s

license subject to various restrictions. In

reinstating Respondent’s license, the

Board recognized that Respondent had

been drug-free for five years and was in

good standing with the PHP. Therefore,

it is undisputed that Respondent is

currently authorized to handle

controlled substances in Tennessee.

While state licensure is a prerequisite

for a DEA registration, it is not

dispositive of whether Respondent’s

registration would be in the public

interest. However, it is noteworthy that

the Board stated that ‘‘[a]ny DEA

certificate that the [Respondent] shall

apply for shall be limited to Schedule

III, IV and V.’’ The Deputy

Administrator agrees with Judge Randall

that, ‘‘[a]lthough this restriction is not

an endorsement by the Board for issuing

a DEA registration to the Respondent, at

a minimum, this statement expresses

the Board’s confidence in the

Respondent’s ability to handle the

responsibilities of a DEA registrant,

particularly regarding the Respondent’s

ability to handle Schedules III, IV and

V controlled substances.’’

Respondent’s experience in

dispensing controlled substances and

his compliance with laws related to

controlled substances may be

considered under factors two and four.

The Deputy Administrator finds that

Respondent’s handling of controlled

substances was abysmal during his

active drug abuse. Respondent violated

21 U.S.C. 843(a)(2) by prescribing

controlled substances without a valid

DEA registration. He caused his expired

DEA Certificate of Registration to be

altered. In addition, Respondent

violated 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) by

prescribing controlled substances to

individuals for no legitimate medical

purpose. He wrote these prescriptions in

exchange for discounts on his cocaine

and crack purchases and in exchange for

topless dances from women.

The Deputy Administrator finds this

conduct to be reprehensible, and

certainly could justify denying

Respondent’s application for

registration. However, all of this

conduct occurred when Respondent was

heavily involved in substance abuse.

Respondent has been drug-free since

November 1992. He underwent

intensive treatment and is still actively

participating in aftercare treatment.

Also of concern is that Respondent

continued to practice medicine in 1993

after he failed to timely renew his state

medical license. However, this occurred

when Respondent was undergoing

substance abuse treatment and he

thought his license was subject to a

grace period.

Other than his practice of medicine

without a current state license, there is

no evidence that Respondent

improperly handled controlled

substances after he entered treatment in

November 1992. In fact, Respondent

handled controlled substances without

question from July 1, 1995 to June 30,

1998 when using institutional numbers

issued to him by the University of

Tennessee during his residency.

Regarding factor three, it is

undisputed that when Respondent was

abusing drugs and alcohol, he was

arrested for drunk driving, reckless

driving, public intoxication and

possession of drug paraphernalia. He

pled guilty to two of these charges. In

addition, on November 18, 1996,

Respondent pled guilty to 17 counts of

unlawful distribution of controlled

substances. Respondent was sentenced

to three years probation and 2,000 hours

of community service. Evidence in the

record indicates that Respondent has

complied with the terms of his

probation. While such convictions

clearly could justify denying

Respondent’s application for

registration, the Deputy Administrator

finds it significant that these

convictions resulted from Respondent’s

behavior when he was addicted to drugs

and alcohol, and as has been previously

discussed, Respondent has been drugfree for seven years and his prognosis

for continued recovery is excellent.

As to factor five, other conduct which

may threaten the public health and

safety, it is undisputed that Respondent

was previously addicted to alcohol and

drugs, including marijuana, cocaine and

crack cocaine. According to

Respondent, his conduct was

‘‘dangerous, illegal, [and] irresponsible’’

when he was addicted. However,

Respondent has under gone intensive

treatment for his substance abuse and

his treatment is ongoing.

It is true that Respondent previously

had undergone treatment but had

relapsed. However, Respondent admits

that he was resistant to treatment at that

time. The second time that Respondent

entered treatment, he did so voluntarily

and is committed to such treatment. The

evidence suggests that his chances of

relapse are slight. He understands the

consequences of a relapse. He intends to

maintain a lifetime relationship with the

PHP and he currently works with others

who are addicted to drugs and alcohol.

Judge Randall also found it significant

under this factor that Respondent

incorrectly listed his home address on

his application for registration.

However, she further found that it was

not so egregious as to warrant a denial

of Respondent’s application for

registration. The Deputy Administrator

agrees that this incorrect listing of his

business address does not warrant

denial of Respondent’s application.

Judge Randall concluded, and the

Deputy Administrator agrees, that the

Government has made a prima facie

case for denial of Respondent’s

application. Respondent unlawfully

prescribed controlled substances,

altered his DEA Certificate of

Registration, abused alcohol and drugs,

and was convicted of offenses relating to

controlled substances. However, it is not

in the public interest to deny

Respondent’s application.

Respondent has acknowledged his

past unlawful behavior and has

accepted responsibility for his conduct.

Respondent had a serious addiction to

drugs and alcohol during his unlawful

conduct. He has been sober since

November 1992 and his chances of

continued recovery are excellent. He

intends to maintain a lifetime

relationship with the PHP and he is

currently still being monitored by the

State of Tennessee. The evidence

suggests that Respondent is clearly

committed to his recovery and is

seeking to help others with substance

abuse problems by predominantly

5686 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Notices

practicing addiction psychiatry. Judge

Randall also found it significant that

Respondent cooperated with law

enforcement by fully disclosing his

unlawful conduct, by providing

information against others, and by

assisting in undercover buys.

Therefore, the Deputy Administrator

agrees with Judge Randall that it would

not be in the public interest to deny

Respondent’s application. However

given the egregiousness of Respondent’s

past behavior, Judge Randall

recommended that restrictions be

imposed on Respondent’s registration

that would ‘‘add a measure of protection

to the public interest, while affording

[Respondent] the opportunity to

demonstrate his ability and willingness

to handle controlled substances

responsibly in his medical practice.’’

Judge Randall recommended that

Respondent’s application for

registration be granted subject to the

following restrictions:

(1) The Respondent must resubmit a

registration application reflecting his

‘‘Proposed Business Address’’ as

required by regulation;

(2) The Respondent be granted a

Certificate of Registration only for

Schedules III, IV and V;

(3) By not later than two years after

the date of the final order, the

Respondent shall submit to the local

DEA office evidence of successful

completion, after August of 1999, of

formal training in the proper handling

or prescribing of controlled substances.

Such training should be provided by an

accredited institution at the

Respondent’s own expense;

(4) For three years after the effective

date of the final order in this case, the

Respondent shall submit, on a quarterly

basis, a log of all of the controlled

substances he has prescribed,

administered or dispensed during the

previous quarter, to the Special Agent in

Charge of the nearest DEA office, or his

or her designee. The log should include:

the patient’s name; the date that the

controlled substance was prescribed,

administered or dispensed; and the

name, dosage and quantity of the

controlled substance prescribed,

administered or dispensed. If no

controlled substances are prescribed,

administered or dispensed during a

given quarter, the Respondent shall

indicate that fact in writing, in lieu of

submission of the log. Review of such a

log should provide adequate assurances

for his future responsible conduct as a

registrant.

The Deputy Administrator agrees with

Judge Randall that Respondent’s

application for registration should be

granted and that it is appropriate to

impose restrictions on such registration.

However, the Deputy Administrator

finds it unnecessary to require

Respondent to resubmit an application

listing his proper business address. At

the hearing in this matter, Respondent

requested that his application be

modified to reflect the address of his

current place of employment. The

Deputy Administrator finds that this

request is sufficient to modify his

application and a new application for

registration is not required. However, if

Respondent’s place of employment has

changed from that represented at the

hearing, a new written request for

modification of the address on his

application must be submitted.

In addition, the Deputy Administrator

disagrees with Judge Randall’s

recommendation that Respondent be

given two years to present evidence of

successful completion of formal training

in the proper handling or prescribing of

controlled substances. Given the nature

of Respondent’s past conduct, the

Deputy Administrator finds that it is in

the public interest for such training to

be completed within one year of being

issued his DEA registration.

Finally, the Deputy Administrator

believes that it is prudent to require

Respondent to continue his affiliation

with the PHP for three years regardless

of whether such affiliation is required

by the Board.

Therefore, the Deputy Administrator

concludes that Respondent should be

granted a DEA Certificate of Registration

in Schedules III, IV and V subject to the

following restrictions:

(1) By not later than one year after the

Certificate of Registration is issued,

Respondent shall submit to the DEA

office in Nashville, Tennessee evidence

of successful completion, after August

of 1999, of formal training in the proper

handling or prescribing of controlled

substances. Such training should be

provided by an accredited institution at

the Respondent’s own expense.

(2) For three years after the issuance

of the Certificate of Registration,

Respondent shall submit, on a quarterly

basis, a log of all of the controlled

substances he has prescribed,

administered, or dispensed during the

previous quarter, to the Resident Agent

in Charge of the DEA office in Nashville,

Tennessee, or his or her designee. The

log should include: The patient’s name;

the date that the controlled substance

was prescribed, administered or

dispensed; and the name, dosage and

quantity of the controlled substance

prescribed, administered, or dispensed.

If no controlled substances are

prescribed, administered or dispensed

during a given quarter, the Respondent

shall indicate that fact in writing, in lieu

of submission of the log.

(3) Respondent shall continue his

affiliation with the Tennessee Medical

Foundation’s Physicians’ Health

Program for at least three years from the

issuance of the Certificate of

Registration, regardless of whether such

affiliation is required by the Tennessee

Board of Medical Examiners.

Accordingly, the Deputy

administrator of the Drug Enforcement

Administration, pursuant to the

authority vested in him by 21 U.S.C. 823

and 824 and 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104,

hereby orders that the application for

registration submitted by Michael Alan

Patterson, M.D., be, and it hereby is,

granted subject to the above described

restrictions. This order is effective upon

the issuance of the DEA Certificate of

Registration, but no later than March 6,

2000, and is the final agency action for

appellate purposes pursuant to 21

U.S.C. 877.

Dated: January 18, 2000.

Donnie R. Marshall,

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 00–2541 Filed 2–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. 96–41]

Paul W. Saxton, D.O.; Denial of

Application for Fees and Expenses

Under the Equal Access to Justice Act

On July 15, 1996, the Deputy

Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA), issued an Order

to Show Cause to Paul W. Saxton, D.O.

(Respondent), proposing to revoke his

DEA Certificate of Registration

AS9420059, and to deny any pending

application for renewal of such

registration. The Order to Show Cause

alleged that Respondent’s continued

registration would be inconsistent with

the public interest pursuant to 21 U.S.C.

823(f) and 824(a)(4).

Following a lengthy hearing and posthearing filings, Administrative Law

Judge Gail A. Randall issued her

Recommended Rulings, Findings of

Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision

on October 6, 1998, recommending that

no adverse action be taken against

Respondent’s DEA registration. On

November 5, 1998, Respondent’s

counsel filed an Application for

Attorney’s Fees and Expenses

(Application), under the Equal Access to

Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. 2412.