16190 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 1997 / Notices

controlled substances for no legitimate

medical use and outside the scope of

professional practice; (2) On or about

January 10, 1991, Respondent was

indicted in the United States District

Court for the Southern District of

Georgia and charged with 12 counts of

illegal distribution of controlled

substances; (3) On May 8, 1991,

Respondent was found guilty in the

United States District Court for the

Southern District of Georgia of four

counts of illegal distribution of

controlled substances; (4) Between 1989

and 1991, Respondent prescribed

numerous different controlled

substances to an individual for no

legitimate medical reason. On May 17,

1991, the individual died of a drug

overdose after consuming a combination

of controlled substances prescribed by

Respondent. A subsequent autopsy

revealed that the individual died of

multiple drug poisoning, consistent

with the controlled substances that

Respondent prescribed; (5) On

September 3, 1991, the Composite State

Board of Medical Examiners, State of

Georgia, ordered the summary

suspension of Respondent’s privileges

to handle controlled substances.

Pursuant to the Order, Respondent was

ordered to surrender DEA Certificate of

Registration AC 9230311. Accordingly,

on September 10, 1991, Respondent

voluntarily surrendered his DEA

registration.

On March 22, 1996, Respondent,

through counsel, requested a hearing on

the issues raised by the Order to Show

Cause, and the matter was docketed

before Administrative Law Judge Mary

Ellen Bittner. Following prehearing

procedures, a hearing was scheduled to

commence on January 29, 1997. On

October 16, 1996, the Government filed

a Motion for Summary Disposition,

alleging that Respondent was not

currently authorized to handle

controlled substances in the State of

Georgia. The Government’s motion was

supported by a copy of a Consent Order

entered into by Respondent and the

Composite State Board of Medical

Examiners for the State of Georgia

(Board) on January 9, 1992, and a copy

of a letter from the Board to DEA dated

October 11, 1996, stating that

Respondent was not authorized to

possess or prescribe controlled

substances. Although provided an

opportunity to do so, Respondent did

not file a response to the Government’s

motion.

On November 22, 1996, Judge Bittner

issued her Opinion and Recommended

Ruling, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of

Law and Decision finding that

Respondent lacked authorization to

handle controlled substances in the

State of Georgia; granting the

Government’s Motion for Summary

Disposition; and recommending that

Respondent’s application for a DEA

Certificate of Registration be denied.

Neither party filed exceptions to her

opinion, and on January 8, 1997, Judge

Bittner 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, in full,

the Opinion and Recommended Ruling,

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Laws

and Decision of the Administrative Law

Judge.

The Acting Deputy Administrator

finds that on January 9, 1992,

Respondent and the Board entered into

a Consent Order whereby Respondent’s

license to practice medicine was

suspended for five years with all but the

first six months suspended and was

then placed on probation. As part of the

Consent Order, Respondent

relinquished, until further order of the

Board, ‘‘his right to prescribe,

administer, dispense, order or possess

* * * controlled substances.’’ A letter

from the Board dated October 11, 1996,

indicated that Respondent was ‘‘not

authorized to possess or prescribe any

controlled substance.’’ There is no

evidence in the record that the Board

has since reinstated Respondent’s

controlled substance privileges.

Therefore, the Acting Deputy

Administrator finds that Respondent is

not currently authorized to handle

controlled substances in the State of

Georgia.

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 business. 21 U.S.C.

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

prerequisite has been consistently

upheld. See Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58

FR 51,104 (1993); James H. Nickens,

M.D., 57 Fed. Reg. 59,847 (1992); Roy E.

Hardman, M.D., 57 FR 49,195 (1992). In

the instant case, the record indicates

that Respondent is not currently

authorized to handle controlled

substances in the State of Georgia. As

Judge Bittner notes, ‘‘[b]ecause

Respondent lacks this state authority, he

is not currently entitled to a DEA

registration.’’ Because Respondent is not

entitled to a DEA registration, the

Acting Deputy Administrator finds it

unnecessary to address whether

Respondent’s registration would be

inconsistent with the public interest as

alleged in the Order to Show Cause.

Judge Bittner also properly granted

the Government’s Motion for Summary

Disposition. Here, the parties did not

dispute the fact that Respondent was

unauthorized to handle controlled

substances in Georgia. Therefore, it is

well-settled that when no question of

material fact is involved, a plenary,

adversary administrative proceeding

involving evidence and crossexamination of witnesses is not

obligatory. See Phillip E. Kirk, M.D., 48

FR 32,887 (1983), aff’d 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); United States v.

Consolidated Mines & Smelting Co., 44

F2d 432 (9th Cir. 1971).

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 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104,

hereby orders that the application

submitted by Jose R. Castro, M.D. for a

DEA Certificate of Registration, be, and

it hereby is, denied. This order is

effective May 5, 1997.

Dated: March 24, 1997.

James S. Milford,

Acting Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–8560 Filed 4–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

Abbas Helim Demetrios, M.D.;

Revocation of Registration

On June 24, 1996, the Deputy

Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA) issued an Order

to Show Cause to Abbas Helim

Demetrios, M.D., notifying him of an

opportunity to show cause as to why

DEA should not revoke his DEA

Certificate of Registration BD1248029,

and deny any pending requests for

modification of such registration to

change the registered address from

California to Georgia, pursuant to 21

U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a)(3), for reason

that he is not currently authorized to

handle controlled substances in the

States of California and Georgia. The

order also notified Dr. Demetrios that

should no request for a hearing be filed

within 30 days, his hearing right would

be deemed waived.

The DEA received a signed receipt

indicating that the order was received

on July 1, 1996. No request for a hearing
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 1997 / Notices 16191

or any other reply was received by the

DEA from Dr. Demetrios or anyone

purporting to represent him in this

matter. Therefore, the Acting Deputy

Administrator, finding that: (1) Thirty

days have passed since the receipt of the

Order to Show Cause, and (2) no request

for a hearing having been received,

concludes that Dr. Demetrios is deemed

to have waived his hearing right. After

considering the relevant material from

the investigative file in this matter, the

Acting Deputy Administrator now

enters his final order without a hearing

pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.54(e) and

1301.57.

The Acting Deputy Administrator

finds that Dr. Demetrios is currently

registered with DEA in the State of

California. On June 3, 1993, he

submitted a renewal application for his

DEA registration indicating that he

wanted to change the address to a

location in Cumming, Georgia.

The Acting Deputy Administrator

further finds that on December 6, 1993,

the Composite State Board of Medical

Examiners for the State of Georgia

(Georgia Board) ordered the summary

suspension of Dr. Demetrios’ license to

practice medicine in the State of Georgia

‘‘based upon (his) repeated pattern of

inappropriate sexual conduct with his

patients.’’ Subsequently, on October 5,

1994, the Georgia Board accepted the

voluntary surrender of Dr. Demetrios’

Georgia medical license. Thereafter, on

May 30, 1995, the Medical Board of

California (California Board) filed an

Accusation proposing to revoke Dr.

Demetrios’ license to practice medicine

in the State of California based upon the

action of the Georgia Board, as well as

Dr. Demetrios’ conviction in a Georgia

state court on charges of rape, battery,

aggravated sexual battery, simple

battery, sexual battery, and sexual

assault by a practitioner of

psychotherapy against a patient. On

April 3, 1996, the California Board

entered a Default Decision revoking Dr.

Demetrios’ California medical license

effective May 3, 1996. The Acting

Deputy Administrator concludes that

Dr. Demetrios is not currently

authorized to handle controlled

substances in the State of California,

where he is currently registered with

DEA, nor in the State of Georgia, where

he is requesting modification of his DEA

registration.

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. 21

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

This prerequisite has been consistently

upheld. See Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58

FR 51,104 (1993); James H. Nickens,

M.D. 57 FR 59,847 (1992); Roy E.

Hardman, M.D., 57 FR 49,195 (1992).

Here, it is clear that Dr. Demetrios is

neither currently authorized to practice

medicine nor to dispense controlled

substances in the States of Georgia and

California. Therefore, he is not entitled

to a DEA registration in either state.

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 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104,

hereby orders that DEA Certificate of

Registration, BD1248029, previously

issued to Abbas Helim Demetrios, M.D.,

be, and it hereby is, revoked. The Acting

Deputy Administrator further orders

that any pending requests for renewal

and/or modification of such registration,

be, and they hereby are, denied. This

order is effective May 5, 1997.

Dated: March 24, 1997.

James S. Milford,

Acting Deputy Adminstrator.

[FR Doc. 97–8559 Filed 4–3–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

[Docket No. 95–44]

Hagura Pharmacy; Denial of

Application

On May 23, 1995, the Deputy

Assistant Administrator, Office of

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA) issued an Order

to Show Cause to Hagura Pharmacy

(Respondent) of Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania, notifying it of an

opportunity to show cause as to why

DEA should not deny its application for

registration as a retail pharmacy under

21 U.S.C. 823(f), for reason that such

registration would be inconsistent with

the public interest.

By letter dated June 22, 1995, the

Respondent, through counsel, timely

filed a request for a hearing, and

following prehearing procedures, a

hearing was held in Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania on March 19, 1996, before

Administrative Law Judge Mary Ellen

Bittner. At the hearing, both parties

called a witness to testify and

introduced documentary evidence. After

the hearing, both parties submitted

proposed findings of fact, conclusions of

law and argument. On December 6,

1996, Judge Bittner issued her Opinion

and Recommended Ruling, Findings of

Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision,

recommending that Respondent’s

application for a DEA Certificate of

Registration be denied. Neither party

filed exceptions to her Opinion and

Recommended Ruling and on January 9,

1997, Judge Bittner 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, in full,

the Opinion and Recommended Ruling,

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law

and Decision of the Administrative Law

Judge. The Acting Deputy

Administrator’s 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 pharmacy is

located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

and is owned and operated by Tahir

Abdullah, R.Ph., M.D. (hereinafter

referred to as Dr. Abdullah). Respondent

pharmacy is seeking registration with

DEA in order to handle controlled

substances.

Dr. Abdullah received his pharmacy

training in Pakistan and came to the

United States in 1973. From

approximately 1977 until 1985, Dr.

Abdullah owned another pharmacy,

also named Hagura Pharmacy, at

another location in Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania. In 1979, Dr. Abdullah’s

brother came to the United States and

worked at Hagura Pharmacy as a clerk.

Dr. Abdullah was the pharmacist-incharge at Hagura Pharmacy until

approximately 1981 when he began his

medical education outside of the United

States. Beginning in 1981, Dr.

Abdullah’s brother and the pharmacistin-charge handled the daily operations

of the pharmacy and Dr. Abdullah’s

wife paid the bills. In 1983, he returned

to the United States after the university

he was attending closed. While he was

in Philadelphia for the most part from

1983 through 1985, Dr. Abdullah only

occasionally went to Hagura Pharmacy

and was not involved in the daily

operations of the pharmacy.

In 1984, unbeknownst to Dr.

Abdullah, his brother attempted to

fraudulently assume ownership of

Hagura Pharmacy. However in this

proceeding, it is undisputed that Dr.

Abdullah remained the owner of Hagura

Pharmacy. In February 1985, Dr.

Abdullah decided to sell Hagura

Pharmacy to his brother-in-law and on

February 28, 1995, papers were filed

with the State Board of Pharmacy for a

change of ownership and listing the new

name of the pharmacy as Khawaja