5672 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Notices

Registration is not warranted. The

Deputy Administrator does not find that

the patients at issue in this proceeding

were prescribed controlled substances

for no legitimate medical purpose.

While Respondent may not have been as

careful in prescribing controlled

substances and in documenting the

reasons for his prescribing, the Deputy

Administrator does not believe that

revocation is appropriate given the

dispute within the medical community

as to when it is proper to use controlled

substances in weight control.

However, Respondent clearly violated

state law by ignoring the 12-week rule

and by failing to properly document the

treatment of his patients. The Deputy

Administrator does not condone

Respondent’s defiance of state law, but

the Deputy Administrator finds it

noteworthy that the state is currently

monitoring Respondent’s treatment of

patients and documentation of this

treatment; that the state did not restrict

Respondent’s ability to handle

controlled substances based upon the

same patient charts in evidence in this

proceeding; and that Respondent has

taken remedial steps to ensure that he

practices in compliance with the law.

But given Respondent’s admitted

defiance of state law by ignoring the 12-

week limitation on prescribing

controlled substances for weight control

that was in effect at the time of the

events at issue, the Deputy

Administrator finds that some controls

are necessary to ensure that Respondent

properly handles controlled substances

in the future. Therefore, for two years

from the effective date of this final order

Respondent shall: (1) Forward to the

DEA Salt Lake City office copies of the

reports of the physician reviewing his

charts pursuant to the Consent Order

with the State of Utah; and (2) consent

to unannounced inspections by DEA

personnel without requiring an

administrative inspection warrant.

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 AH1650248, previously

issued to Wesley G. Harline, M.D., be

and it hereby is continued, subject to

the above described restrictions. This

order is effective 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. 00–2536 Filed 2–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. 98–16]

Judy L. Henderson, D.V.M.; Grant of

Restricted Registration

On February 3, 1998, the Deputy

Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA), issued an Order

to Show Cause to Judy L. Henderson,

D.V.M. (Respondent) of Corinth,

Mississippi, notifying her of an

opportunity to show cause as to why

DEA should not deny her application

for registration as a practitioner

pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f), for reason

that her registration would be

inconsistent with the public interest.

By letter dated March 3, 1998,

Respondent requested a hearing on the

issues raised by the Order to Show

Cause. Following prehearing

procedures, a hearing was held in

Memphis, Tennessee on November 18,

1998, and April 20, 1999, before

Administrative Law Judge Mary Ellen

Bittner. At the hearing, the Government

called witnesses and introduced

documentary evidence and Respondent

testified on her own behalf. After the

hearing both parties submitted proposed

findings of fact, conclusions of law and

argument.

On September 21, 1999, Judge Bittner

issued her Opinion and Recommended

Ruling, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of

Law and Decision (Opinion),

recommending that Respondent’s

application for registration be granted

limited to four specific substances and

subject to two conditions. Neither party

filed exceptions to Judge Bittner’s

Opinion, and on October 25, 1999,

Judge Bittner 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. The Deputy

Administrator adopts the findings of

fact and conclusions of law of the

Administrative Law Judge in their

entirety, and adopts with several

modifications, as noted below, the

conclusion and recommended decision

of the Administrative 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 fact or law.

The Deputy Administrator finds that

Respondent is a veterinarian. At various

times during her career she suffered

from serious medical conditions which

prevented her from practicing veterinary

medicine.

In March 1987, a local pharmacist

advised the Mississippi Bureau of

Narcotics (MBN) that Respondent had

used prescriptions and DEA order forms

to obtain a large amount of Demerol, a

Schedule II narcotic controlled

substance, from the pharmacy. A

subsequent pharmacy survey revealed a

total of six prescriptions and eight order

forms written by Respondent. The

prescriptions were for a total of 30

dosage units of Ionamin, a Schedule IV

controlled substance, 30 dosage units of

diazepam, a Schedule IV controlled

substance, six ampules of Demerol, one

ounce of liquid Demerol, and 20 dosage

units of Mepergan Fortis, a Schedule II

narcotic controlled substance. The

Ionamin and diazepam prescriptions

listed Respondent as the patient, the

prescription for six ampules of Demerol

listed the clinic where Respondent

worked and had the notation ‘‘clinic use

only,’’ the Mepergan Fortis prescription

was made out to Respondent’s thenhusband, and the prescription for one

ounce of Demerol was made out in a

dog’s name. Each of the order forms was

for one 30 cc. vial of Demerol.

On March 26, 1987, MBN agents

interviewed Respondent who told the

agents that she had obtained the various

narcotics for her own use because she

suffered from extremely painful medical

conditions. The agents subsequently

confirmed with Respondent’s physician

that he was treating Respondent for the

medical conditions. However, the

physician indicated that he did not

know that Respondent was selfprescribing and that he would help her.

No charges were filed against

Respondent as a result of this

investigation.

Respondent testified at the hearing in

this matter that she was treated with

intravenous Demerol for a painful

kidney disorder. Following surgery for

this disorder, Respondent experienced

withdrawal from the Demerol.

Respondent testified that she was

ashamed that she had become

dependent on the Demerol and

attempted to wean herself off by taking

oral Demerol intended for the animals

she treated. This attempt was

unsuccessful and in fact Respondent

was taking more Demerol than she had

before her surgery. According to

Respondent she then began injecting

herself with Demerol. Finally, at or

about the end of November 1997,

Respondent entered a 28-day treatment

program and stopped using controlled

substances.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Notices 5673

As to the other prescriptions

discovered during this investigation,

Respondent testified that she purchased

Ionamin to treat an obese dog, and that

the Valium was for use in a clinic where

she worked. Respondent further

testified that she did not prescribe

Mepergan Fortis for her then-husband,

but that the prescription was for her

then-mother-in-law’s dog, who

Respondent was treating for cancer.

The Government alleged that

Respondent surrendered her DEA

Certificate of Registration in 1987.

However, the investigator who testified

at the hearing indicated that she could

not locate a copy of the surrender form.

Respondent testified that at some point

in 1987 the attorney for the Mississippi

State Board of Veterinary Medicine

(Veterinary Board) wrote to her

recommending that she surrender her

DEA registration, but that she did not

respond to this letter since she was very

ill and not working at the time. It was

Respondent’s recollection that she

simply let her DEA registration expire.

She testified that she still had the

registration certificate in her possession

the next time that she applied for a DEA

registration. Judge Bittner found

Respondent’s testimony to be credible

and therefore found that the evidence

does not support a finding that

Respondent’s surrendered her DEA

Certificate of Registration in 1987.

Respondent was issued DEA

Certificate of Registration BE2196687 on

March 20, 1990.

In October 1992, DEA was advised by

Respondent’s then-husband that

Respondent was abusing controlled

substances. A subsequent pharmacy

survey did not reveal any controlled

substance prescriptions issued by

Respondent. DEA then contacted

Respondent’s drug distributor and

discovered that Respondent had ordered

500 dosage units of lorazepam 2 mg., a

Schedule IV controlled substance, and

2200 dosage units of hydrocodone with

APAP, a Schedule III controlled

substance, between March 4 and

October 19, 1992.

A DEA investigator contacted two

physician who had treated Respondent.

One physician treated Respondent for

painful medical conditions from 1989

until June 1992, and prescribed her

Lortab 7.5 mg., a Schedule III controlled

substance. The other physician

indicated that he treated Respondent

from February 1987 until March 1991,

also for painful medical conditions.

There is no indication in the record

whether this physician prescribed

Respondent any controlled substances.

On October 21, 1992, DEA agents met

with Respondent at her home.

Respondent told the agents that she had

not been practicing veterinary medicine

for a period of time because she was ill.

She further told the agents that rather

than filling the prescriptions that her

physician issued to her, she was

ordering the drugs using her DEA

registration because it was less

expensive to obtain the drugs that way.

At this meeting, Respondent

surrendered her DEA Certificate of

Registration, order forms, and controlled

substances in her possession.

Respondent testified at the hearing

that in 1990 she developed an extremely

painful medical condition that rendered

her unable to work. She acknowledged

that she ordered controlled substances

during this period, and that at one point

she bought Demerol from a hospital

pharmacy. Respondent further testified

that her physician did not know that she

was ordering hydrocodone, and that

although she know that ordering the

drug for herself was an unethical use of

her DEA registration, she had not

thought that it was criminal conduct.

Respondent testified that she ultimately

recovered from this illness following

radical surgery.

On March 1, 1996, Respondent

executed an application for a new DEA

Certificate of Registration. DEA sought a

recommendation from the Veterinary

Board as to whether this application

should be granted. On June 10, 1996, the

Veterinary Board responded, stating in

pertinent part:

While the granting or denial of [a DEA

registration] is a determination to be made by

your agency, the Mississippi Board of

Veterinary Medicine cannot recommend

unrestricted approval by your agency. While

the Board is happy that [Respondent] has

returned to practice, nevertheless, the Board

feels that, at most, [Respondent’s] purchases

of controlled drugs should be limited to the

purchase of euthanasia solutions and a

limited number of purchases for anesthetics.

As a result of this letter, Respondent

wrote to the Veterinary Board asking for

its approval for her to use ketamine, at

the time a non-controlled substance;

Socumb, brand name for a product

containing sodium pentobarbital, a

Schedule II non-narcotic controlled

substance; Valium, brand name for a

product containing diazepam; Sodium

Pentothal, trade name for thiopental, a

Schedule III non-narcotic controlled

substance; phenobarbital, a Schedule IV

controlled substance; testosterone, a

Schedule III controlled substance; and

Winstrol-V, Telazol, and Tussigon, all

controlled substances. By letter to

Respondent dated October 28, 1996, the

Veterinary Board recommended that she

use ketamine, Rompun, acepromazine

(or other tranquilizers), gas anesthesia,

lidocaine (for local use), Torbutral, and

Sodium Pentothal as a pre-anesthetic.

Rompun, acepromazine, and lidocaine

are not controlled substances. Ketamine

was previously noncontrolled but was

placed in Schedule III effective August

12, 1999. Torbutral is a controlled

substance.

During the course of investigating

Respondent’s application for a DEA

registration, DEA contacted the local

sheriff. The local sheriff indicated that

in 1993, Respondent was caught stealing

ketamine from another veterinarian.

In explaining why she stole the

ketamine, Respondent testified that after

her radical surgery, she went through a

very bitter divorce and custody

proceeding, that she ‘‘lost everything,’’

and that her ex-husband made

allegations about her to other

veterinarians in the area that effectively

prevented her from obtaining work. She

further testified that her ex-husband was

physically abusive and had threatened

to kill her if she did not stop attempting

to regain custody of their child.

Respondent testified that upon the

recommendation of a local police

officer, she obtained a gun to protect

herself from her ex-husband. According

to Respondent, she ultimately realized

that she would not be able to shoot her

ex-husband if threatened and instead

decided to obtain ketamine to use as a

chemical immobilizer. Respondent

testified that shortly before stealing the

ketamine, her ex-husband had attacked

her with a hammer, resulting in her

being admitted to an emergency room.

Respondent testified that she stole

ketamine from the other veterinarian

twice. The first time, she took a total of

two cc. of ketamine, but then decided

that that would not be a sufficient

quantity to subdue her ex-husband.

Respondent testified that she then took

a bottle that had held 10 cc. of ketamine

and had about one cc. of the drug left

in it, and she then added small

quantities of ketamine that she took

from other bottles, substituting saline in

those bottles. Respondent acknowledged

that what she did was wrong.

The other veterinarian decided not to

press charges against Respondent

provided that Respondent seek

treatment. As a result, Respondent

entered a treatment program to be

treated for depression and tested for

ketamine. According to Respondent, she

stayed in that program for two weeks

and then went to a program that treated

health care professionals where she

stayed for three to four months.

Thereafter she moved to an outpatient

facility. Respondent testified that she

spent a total of five months in treatment

for clinical depression and hydrocodone

5674 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Notices

addiction. According to Respondent, her

treatment ended in February 1994. She

testified that she has not taken any

narcotic drug, except during surgery,

since October 1993.

On November 5, 1996, a DEA

investigator asked Respondent to send

information regarding her rehabilitation

and aftercare treatment. According to

the investigator, Respondent did not

send any such information. Respondent

acknowledged that the DEA investigator

had asked her to provide records of her

treatment, but that she had substantial

difficulty obtaining these records from

the facilities.

Respondent testified that she

eventually started her own veterinary

practice, and that she was the only

veterinarian in her town who was

always available. According to

Respondent, the majority of her practice

is trauma emergency medicine, unlike

other veterinarians.

In June 1997, Respondent contacted

the DEA investigator and advised that

the only drug she was using at that time

was Socumb. The investigator asked

Respondent how she obtained the

Socumb since she was not registered

with DEA to handle controlled

substances at that time. Respondent

indicated that she received a partial

bottle from another veterinarian. The

DEA investigator contacted the other

veterinarian who indicated that he

provided the sodium pentobarbital to

Respondent after Respondent showed

him a letter from the Veterinary Board

stating that she could use the drug.

Respondent told the other veterinarian

that she had an animal in distress, so he

gave her 10 to 20 cc. to euthanize the

animal.

Respondent testified at the hearing

that the dog she was treating had been

poisoned, that the incident occurred late

at night on a weekend, and that the dog

was in intense pain. She contacted the

other veterinarian who refused to put

the dog to sleep himself, but offered to

prescribe enough of the drug so

Respondent could euthanize the dog.

Respondent testified that because she

was working under the other

veterinarian she did not realize that she

had done anything wrong. It is

undisputed that after speaking to the

DEA investigator, Respondent returned

the remaining sodium pentobarbital to

the other veterinarian.

Respondent asserted that since she is

the only veterinarian in the area who

handles emergencies after hours, she

needs a DEA registration in order to care

for her patients. Respondent testified

that she needs to use sodium

pentobarbital, butorphanol, and Valium

in her practice. The sodium

pentobarbital would be used to

euthanize animals, the butorphanol to

relive pain in the animals, and the

Valium to control seizures and treat sick

cats that refuse to eat. According to

Respondent, she would be willing to

install security measures, maintain

whatever records are required, and be

subject to random drug testing.

Respondent has acknowledged her

mistakes. Respondent testified that she

has ‘‘suffered greatly because of this.

And I expect to the rest of my life. This

will be a great humiliation to me. But

I truly—I truly don’t believe it will ever

happen again. I never have a desire to.

I never had before these two instances

and I never have since.’’

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 Veterinary Board

recommended that Respondent not be

given an unrestricted registration,

however the Veterinary Board did

recommend that Respondent be

authorized to handle thiopental and

ketamine, Schedule III controlled

substances, and butorphanol, a

Schedule IV controlled substance.

Although Respondent has indicated that

she also needs to be able to use sodium

pentobarbital for euthanasia, the

Veterinary Board did not mention this

substance in its June 10, 1996 letter. The

Deputy Administrator agrees with Judge

Bittner that while the Veterinary Board’s

recommendations are not dispositive,

they certainly weigh in favor of at the

very least granting Respondent a DEA

registration restricted to certain

substances.

Regarding factor two, the evidence

supports a finding that prior to 1987,

Respondent abused her DEA registration

by issuing prescriptions and using DEA

order forms to obtain controlled

substances for her own use. In 1992,

Respondent again used her DEA

registration to obtain controlled

substances for her own use. Respondent

also handled sodium pentobarbital in

1997, when she was not authorized to

do so.

As to factor three, there is no evidence

that Respondent has been convicted of

any criminal charges relating to the

manufacture, distribution or dispensing

of controlled substances.

Regarding factor four, Respondent’s

compliance with applicable laws

relating to controlled substances, it is

undisputed that Respondent used DEA

order forms in violation of 21 U.S.C.

828(e) to obtain controlled substances

for her own use. In addition,

Respondent issued prescriptions to

obtain Demerol for her own use in

violation of 21 U.S.C. 829 and 21 CFR

1306.04. The Deputy Administrator

notes however that these violations

occurred when Respondent was

suffering from painful medical

conditions and had become addicted to

narcotic controlled substances.

According to Respondent, these

conditions are now under control, she

has undergone treatment for her

addiction, and she has not improperly

obtained or personally used controlled

substances, except as a result of surgery,

since October 1993. As recently as 1997,

Respondent handled sodium

pentobarbital when she was not

registered with DEA to do so in

violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a). While not

condoning this violation, the Deputy

Administrator does not find under the

circumstances that this isolated incident

warrants denying Respondent’s

application for registration.

As to factor five, the Deputy

Administrator is troubled by

Respondent’s theft of ketamine in 1993.

Although ketamine was not a controlled

substance at the time, her stated

purpose of immobilizing her exhusband with the drug raises serious

concerns about her fitness to handle

controlled substances. However, the

Deputy Administrator notes that this

incident occurred in 1993, that

Respondent has since undergone

extensive treatment for depression and

drug addiction, that Respondent has

acknowledged the wrongfulness of this

behavior, and that there is no evidence

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Notices 5675

of any similar type behavior since that

time.

The Deputy Administrator also finds

it relevant under this factor that

Respondent was previously addicted to

narcotic controlled substances.

Respondent has acknowledged her past

problems and appears to be remorseful.

However, while Respondent asserts that

she has undergone treatment and that

she has not improperly used controlled

substances since 1993, the Deputy

Administrator is troubled by the lack of

evidence in the record, other than

Respondent’s own testimony, regarding

Respondent’s treatment for her

addiction. The record is also devoid of

evidence of any continued monitoring

of Respondent and any support network

in place to help prevent a relapse.

The Deputy Administrator agrees with

Judge Bittner that the Government has

presented a prima facie case for the

denial of Respondent’s application for

registration based upon Respondent’s

use of her previous DEA registrations to

obtain controlled substances for her

own use, her abuse of controlled

substance, her violation of laws relating

to controlled substances, her handling

of sodium pentobarbital in 1997 when

not authorized to do so, and her theft of

a non-controlled substance in 1993 to be

used to temporarily immobilize her exhusband. However, Judge Bittner found

credible Respondent’s testimony that

she has not used controlled substances

since 1993 except as prescribed lawfully

by a physician. Judge Bittner also found

credible Respondent’s testimony

regarding the circumstances

surrounding her theft to ketamine in

1993 and her 1997 handling of sodium

penotobarbital, and that she regrets her

misconduct, is willing to accept

restrictions on her registration, and will

not abuse her registration or controlled

substances in the future.

Therefore, Judge Bittner concluded

that it would not be inconsistent with

the public interest to grant Respondent

a DEA Certificate of Registration limited

to the Schedule II controlled sodium

pentobarbital, the Schedule III

controlled substances ketamine and

thiopental, and the Schedule IV

controlled substance butorphanol

subject to the following conditions:

(1) Respondent shall maintain

accurate records showing all purchases,

administering and dispensing

(including prescribing) of all controlled

substances; and

(2) Respondent shall submit copies of

all such records to the Special Agent in

Charge of DEA’s New Orleans Office, or

his designees, quarterly, for five years

from the effective date of her

registration.

The Deputy Administrator agrees with

Judge Bittner that it is not in the public

interest to deny Respondent’s

application for registration and basically

agrees with Judge Bittner’s

recommended restrictions. However, the

Deputy Administrator is extremely

reluctant to grant Respondent the

authority to handle ketamine, the very

substance she admitted stealing in 1993

to potentially use to incapacitate her exhusband. Nonetheless, the Deputy

Administrator will do so given that the

Veterinary Board recommended that

Respondent be authorized to handle

ketamine and the recommendation of

the appropriate state licensing authority

is one of the factors to be considered by

the Deputy Administrator in

determining the public interest. The

Deputy Administrator is also troubled

by the lack of evidence in the record,

other than Respondent’s own testimony,

regarding her treatment and

rehabilitation. Consequently, the Deputy

Administrator finds it necessary to have

safeguards in place to be certain that

Respondent does not abuse controlled

substances once she is issued a limited

registration.

Therefore, the Deputy Administrator

concludes that Respondent should be

issued a DEA Certificate of Registration

in Schedules II non-narcotic, III and IV

subject to the following restrictions for

three years from the date of issuance of

the DEA Certificate of Registration:

(1) While Respondent shall be

registered in Schedules II non-narcotic,

III and IV, she shall only handle sodium

pentobarbital, ketamine, thiopental, and

butorphanol.

(2) Respondent shall send copies of

records documenting all of her

purchases of controlled substances to

the Special Agent in Charge of the DEA

New Orleans office, or her designee, on

a quarterly basis.

(3) Respondent shall submit, on a

quarterly basis, a log of all of the

controlled substances she has

prescribed, administered, or dispensed

during the previous quarter, to the

Special Agent in Charge of the DEA

New Orleans office, or his designee. The

log shall 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, Respondent shall indicate

that fact in writing, in lieu of

submission of the log.

(4) Respondent shall submit to

random urinalysis, at her own expense,

not less than one time per month.

Within 30 days of the effective date of

this order, Respondent shall notify the

Special Agent in Charge of the DEA

New Orleans office, or his designee, in

writing, as to the identity of the

laboratory or hospital that will be

conducting the random urinalysis.

Reports documenting the results of

these tests shall be forwarded to the

Special Agent in Charge of the DEA

New Orleans office, or his designee.

(5) Respondent shall consent to

random, unannounced inspections

without the need for an Administrative

Inspection Warrant.

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 Judy L.

Henderson, D.V.M., be, and it hereby is,

granted in Schedules II non-narcotics,

III and IV, 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.

Dated: January 18, 2000.

Donnie R. Marshall,

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 00–2540 Filed 2–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

Archibald W. Hutchinson, M.D.;

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 Archibald W.

Hutchinson, M.D., of Marietta, Ohio,

notifying him of an opportunity to show

cause as to why DEA should not revoke

his DEA Certificate of Registration

BH2898053 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. 823(f),

for reason that he is not currently

authorized to handle controlled

substances in the State of Ohio. The

order also notified Dr. Hutchinson that

should no request for a hearing be filed

within 30 days, his hearing right would

be deemed waived.

The Order to Show Cause was sent to

Dr. Hutchinson at his registered

location. DEA received a signed receipt

indicating that it was received and

signed for by an individual on

November 3, 1999. The Order to Show