Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Notices 5677

evidence and cross-examination of

witnesses is not obligatory. See Gilbert

Ross, M.D., 61 FR 8664 (1996); Philip E.

Kirk, M.D., 48 FR 32,887 (1983), aff’d

sub nom Kirk v. Mullen, 749 F.2d 297

(6th Cir. 1984); NLRB v. International

Association of Bridge, Structural and

Ornamental Ironworkers, AFL–CIO, 549

F.2d 634 (9th Cir. 1977).

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 0.014,

hereby orders that DEA Certificate of

Registration AJ1551399, issued to

Kenneth Leroy Jones, M.D. be, and it

hereby is, revoked. The Deputy

Administrator further orders that any

pending applications for renewal of

such registration be, and they hereby

are, denied. This order is effective

March 6, 2000.

Dated: January 18, 2000.

Donnie R. Marshall,

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 00–2528 Filed 2–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. 99–31]

Richard Eaton Leach, M.D. Revocation

of Registration

On August 5, 1999, the Deputy

Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA) issued an Order

to Show Cause to Richard Eaton Leach,

M.D. (Respondent) of Lake Charles,

Louisiana, notifying him of an

opportunity to show cause as to why

DEA should not revoke his DEA

Certificate of Registration AL8792106,

and deny any pending applications for

renewal of such registration as a

practitioner pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f)

and 824(a)(3). The Order to Show Cause

alleged that Respondent is not currently

authorized to handle controlled

substances in the State of Louisiana.

By letter dated August 19, 1999,

Respondent filed a request for a hearing,

listing a Lake Charles, Louisiana

address. The matter was docketed before

Administrative Law Judge Gail A.

Randall. On September 1, 1999, Judge

Randall issued an Order for Prehearing

Statements. On September 23, 1999, the

Government filed a Motion for

Summary Disposition, alleging that

Respondent is currently registered with

DEA to handle controlled substances in

Louisiana, however he is not currently

authorized by the State of Louisiana to

handle controlled substances. In

addition, the Government requested that

Judge Randall stay the proceedings

pending her ruling on the Government’s

motion. In an order dated September 24,

1999, Judge Randall stayed the

proceedings pending her ruling on the

Government’s motion and gave the

Respondent an opportunity to file a

response to the Government’s motion.

Both the Order for Prehearing

Statements and the September 24, 1999

order were mailed to Respondent at the

address listed on his request for a

hearing, however according to Judge

Randall, both were returned to DEA

with the notation ‘‘moved left no

address, unable to forward, return to

sender.’’ Then, according to Judge

Randall, the two orders were sent to

Respondent’s registered location in

Jonesville, Louisiana. The Order for

Prehearing Statements was returned to

DEA with a notation ‘‘return to sender,

not at this address,’’ and the other order

has not been returned.

On October 22, 1999, Judge Randall

issued her Opinion and Recommended

Decision finding that Respondent has

waived his opportunity to reply to the

Government’s Motion for Summary

Disposition. He is no longer receiving

mail at his registered address nor at the

address listed in his request for a

hearing. Further he has failed to inform

Judge Randall of any viable address. In

her Opinion and Recommended

Decision, Judge Randall also found that

Respondent lacks authorization to

handle controlled substances in the

State of Louisiana; granted the

Government’s Motion for Summary

Disposition; and recommended that

Respondent’s DEA Certificate of

Registration be revoked. Neither party

filed exceptions to her Opinion and

Recommended Decision, and on

November 22, 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

replaces and supersedes the final order

issued on January 3, 2000. The Deputy

Administrator adopts, in full, the

Opinion and Recommended Decision of

the Administrative Law Judge.

The Deputy Administrator finds based

upon the evidence in the record that

Respondent’s license to practice

medicine in Louisiana was indefinitely

suspended on February 27, 1998.

Additionally, by a letter dated April 20,

1998, Respondent was informed that his

state license to possess, distribute, or

prescribe controlled substances was

suspended due to the loss of his medical

license. No evidence was presented by

Respondent to dispute that he is not

currently authorized to handle

controlled substances in the State of

Louisiana. Therefore, the Deputy

Administrator finds that Respondent is

not currently authorized to handle

controlled substances in Louisiana, the

state in which he is registered with

DEA.

The DEA does not have statutory

authority under the Controlled

Substances Act to issue or maintain a

registration if the applicant or registrant

is without state authority to handle

controlled substances in the state in

which he conducts his business. See 21

U.S.C. 802(21), 823(f) and 824(a)(3).

This prerequisite has been consistently

upheld. See Romeo J. Perez, M.D., 62 FR

16,193 (1997); Demetris A. Green, M.D.,

61 FR 60,728 (1996); Dominick A. Ricci,

M.D., 58 FR 51,104 (1993).

Here, it is clear that Respondent is not

licensed to handle controlled substances

in Louisiana. Since Respondent lacks

this state authority, he is not entitled to

a DEA registration in that state.

In light of the above, Judge Randall

properly granted the Government’s

Motion for Summary Disposition. The

parties did not dispute the fact that

Respondent is currently unauthorized to

handle controlled substances in

Louisiana. Therefore, it is well-settled

that when no question of material fact

is involved, a plenary, adversary

administrative proceeding involving

evidence and cross-examination of

witnesses is not obligatory. See Philip E.

Kirk, M.D. 48 FR 32,887 (1983), aff’d

sub nom Kirk v. Mullen, 749 F.2d 297

(6th Cir. 1984); NLRB v. International

Association of Bridge, Structural and

Ornamental Ironworkers, AFL–CIO, 549

F.2d 634 (9th Cir. 1977).

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 AL8792106, previously

issued to Richard Eaton Leach, M.D., be,

and it hereby is, revoked. The Deputy

Administrator further orders that any

pending applications for renewal of

such registration be, and they hereby

are, denied. This order is effective

March 6, 2000, and is the final agency

action for appellate purposes pursuant

to 21 U.S.C. 877.

5678 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Notices

Dated: January 18, 2000.

Donnie R. Marshall,

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 00–2529 Filed 2–4–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. 99–33]

Brett L. Lusskin, M.D.; Revocation of

Registration

On August 10, 1999, the Deputy

Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA) issued an Order

to Show Cause to Brett L. Lusskin, M.D.

(Respondent), of Hallandale, Florida,

notifying him of an opportunity to show

cause as to why DEA should not revoke

his DEA Certificate of Registration

AL0133102, and deny any pending

applications for renewal of such

registration as a practitioner pursuant to

21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a)(3). The

Order to Show Cause alleged that

Respondent is not currently authorized

to handle controlled substances in the

State of Florida.

By letter dated September 8, 1999,

Respondent, through counsel, filed a

request for a hearing, and the matter was

docketed before Administrative Law

Judge Gail A. Randall. On October 7,

1999, the Government filed a Motion for

Summary Disposition, alleging that

Respondent is currently registered with

DEA to handle controlled substances in

Florida, however he is not currently

authorized by the State of Florida to

handle controlled substances. On

November 1, 1999, Respondent filed a

response to the Government’s motion

arguing that Judge Randall does not

have sufficient evidence to support the

allegation that Respondent lacks

authorization to handle controlled

substances in Florida.

On November 15, 1999, Judge Randall

issued her Opinion and Recommended

Decision finding that Respondent lacks

authorization to handle controlled

substances in the State of Florida;

granting the Government’s Motion for

Summary Disposition; and

recommending that Respondent’s DEA

Certificate of Registration be revoked.

Neither party filed exceptions to her

Opinion and Recommended Decision,

and on December 14, 1999, Judge

Randall transmitted the record of these

proceedings to the Office of 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. The Deputy

Administrator adopts, in full, the

Opinion and Recommended Decision of

the Administrative Law Judge.

The Deputy Administrator finds that

Respondent currently possesses DEA

Certificate of Registration AL0133102,

issued to him at an address in

Hallandale, Florida. The Deputy

Administrator further finds that on May

7, 1998, the Medical Board of the State

of Florida (Medical Board) issued a final

order indefinitely suspending

Respondent’s medical license. In an

Opinion filed on March 31, 1999, the

District Court of Appeal of the State of

Florida, Fourth District, granted

Respondent a new hearing before the

Medical Board but declined to stay the

suspension of Respondent’s medical

license.

In his response to the Government’s

motion, Respondent argued that he is

retired from the active practice of

medicine, and therefore, his continued

registration poses no risk to the public

interest. Additionally, Respondent

noted that he has filed an Amended

Complaint with the Agency for Health

Care Administration and expects a

hearing in the near future.

In her Opinion and Recommended

Decision, Judge Randall found that the

Government presented credible

evidence that Respondent’s Florida

medical license was indefinitely

suspended, and the suspension has not

been stayed. Respondent has presented

no evidence to the contrary. As Judge

Randall noted, ‘‘[a] pending rehearing of

the Medical Board’s decision does not

alter the Respondent’s status in Florida.

The outcome of a rehearing of the

Medical Board’s action is speculative,

and the decision of the Medical Board

is final until otherwise overturned.’’

Therefore, the Deputy Administrator

finds that Respondent is not currently

authorized to practice medicine in the

State of Florida and as a result, it is

reasonable to infer that he is also not

authorized to handle controlled

substances in that state.

DEA does not have statutory authority

under the Controlled Substances Act to

issue or maintain a registration if the

applicant or registrant is without state

authority to handle controlled

substances in the state in which he

conducts his business. See 21 U.S.C.

802(21), 823(f) and 824(a)(3). This

prerequisite has been consistently

upheld. See Romeo J. Perez, M.D., 62 FR

16,193 (1997); Demetris A. Green, M.D.,

61 FR 60,728 (1996); Dominick A. Ricci,

M.D., 58 FR 51,104 (1993).

Here, it is clear that Respondent is not

licensed to handle controlled substances

in Florida. Since Respondent lacks this

state authority, he is not entitled to a

DEA registration in that state.

In light of the above, Judge Randall

properly granted the Government’s

Motion for Summary Disposition. The

parties did not dispute the fact that

Respondent is currently unauthorized to

handle controlled substances in Florida.

Therefore, it is well-settled that when

no question of material fact is involved,

a plenary, adversary administrative

proceeding involving evidence and

cross-examination of witnesses is not

obligatory. See Gilbert Ross, M.D., 61 FR

8664 (1996); Philip E. Kirk, M.D., 48 FR

32,887 (1983), aff’d sub nom Kirk v.

Mullen, 749 F.2d 297 (6th Cir. 1984);

NLRB v. International Association of

Bridge, Structural and Ornamental

Ironworkers, AFL–CIO, 549 F.2d 634

(9th Cir. 1977).

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 Certificates of

Registration AL0133102, issued to Brett

L. Lusskin, M.D., be, and it hereby is,

revoked. The Deputy Administrator

further orders that any pending

applications for renewal of such

registration be, and they hereby are,

denied. This order is effective March 6,

2000.

Dated: January 18, 2000.

Donnie R. Marshall,

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 00–2530 Filed 2–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

Charles W. Marshall, D.P.M.;

Revocation of Registration

On July 28, 1999, the Deputy

Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA), issued an Order

to Show Cause to Charles W. Marshall,

D.P.M., of Chicago, Illinois, notifying

him of an opportunity to show cause as

to why DEA should not revoke his DEA

Certificate of Registration BM2648472

pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), and

deny any pending applications for

renewal of such registration pursuant to

21 U.S.C. 8231(f), for reason that he is

not currently authorized to handle

controlled substances in the State of

Illinois. The order also notified Dr.