Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/10/22/2013-24697/mark-g-medinnus-dds-decision-and-order
Timestamp: 2017-10-19 14:53:24
Document Index: 180506418

Matched Legal Cases: ['§\u2009823', '§\u2009823', '§\u200911173', '§\u200911173', '§\u200917', '§\u20091203', '§\u200911173', '§\u20091301', '§\u20091304', '§\u200911173']

Federal Register :: Mark G. Medinnus, D.D.S.; Decision and Order
62683-62694 (12 pages)
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2013-24697 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2013-24697
On October 17, 2012, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Gail A. Randall issued the attached Recommended Decision (hereinafter, cited as R.D.[1] ). The Government filed Exceptions to the Recommended Decision.
In challenging this finding, the Government takes issue with the ALJ's credibility findings. Citing Ryan v. CFTC, 145 F.3d 910, 918 (7th Cir. 1998), it argues that I am “free to discount the weight that the ALJ placed on the testimony when the record would support an alternative finding.” Exceptions at 1 (also citing Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 (1951)).[2]
More specifically, the Government requests that I reject the ALJ's credibility findings regarding the testimony of both Respondent (whom she found credible on the issue of whether a dental clinic employee had told him that the executive director had approved the purchase order, see R.D. at 12, 27) and the clinic employee (whom she found not credible when she testified that the executive director did not think it was a good idea because of Respondent's history of substance abuse, see id.). See Exceptions at 2-6. While the Government clearly misreads Ryan,[3] I conclude that it is not Start Printed Page 62684necessary to either adopt or reject the ALJ's credibility findings, because even were I to reject the findings with respect to both Respondent and the clinic employee, the Government cannot overcome the evidence that the purchase order was approved by an official of the clinic, who indisputably had authority to do so. R.D. at 12, 27; Tr. 158.
The Government attempts to overcome this evidence, arguing that in an affidavit, the deputy director “unequivocally states that she was not aware [that] the purchase order, which contained a number of items, also contained an order for controlled substances.” Exceptions at 7. The Government then argues that “[a] review of the purchase order shows that . . . the controlled substances order is buried in the middle/end of the purchase order.” Id.
The Government's argument is wholly unpersuasive. Notably, the purchase order was but a single page in length and listed all of eleven items. GX 10, at 1. Moreover, the purchase order clearly described the respective controlled substances as “1 bottle” of “Hydrocodone” and “1 bottle” of “APAP w/codeine.” Id. Thus, even a cursory review of the purchase order by the deputy director should have revealed that it contained controlled substances. I thus give no weight to the assertion of the deputy director that she inadvertently approved the order and reject the Government's contention that Respondent's purchase of controlled substances was unauthorized.[4] Cf. Consolidated Edison Co. v. United States, 221 F.3d 364, 371 (2d Cir. 2000) (“In general, individuals are charged with knowledge of the contents of documents they sign—that is, they have `constructive knowledge' of those contents.”).[5]
Even if the Government's contention was supported by substantial evidence, I would nonetheless reject the exception. Notably, while the Government argues—as an afterthought—that Respondent used the clinic's “DEA registration without authorization from RVIHC executive personnel,” it does not go so far as to maintain that this constitutes a violation of the Controlled Substances Act. See Exceptions at 10, but see 21 U.S.C. 843(a)(2) (“It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally . . . to use for the purpose of acquiring or obtaining a controlled substance, a registration number which is . . . issued to another person.”). Indeed, notwithstanding that Respondent could not account for forty tablets of hydrocodone, the evidence showed that the drugs were generally dispensed to patients in the course of providing dental treatment. Finally, while in its post-hearing brief, the Government notes that both factors four (compliance with applicable controlled substance laws, 21 U.S.C. 823(f)(4)) and five (such other conduct which may threaten public health and safety, id. § 823(f)(5)), are to be considered in determining the public interest, it does not cite to any provision of state law that Respondent violated in making the purported unauthorized purchase.[6] Nor does it cite to any Agency decision holding that a violation of a clinic's internal operating policies, which does not otherwise violate the CSA or state law, constitutes conduct “inconsistent with the public interest.” 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4). Thus, even if the Government had proved that Respondent made an unauthorized purchase of the two drugs, I would reject the exception because it fails to establish actionable misconduct under the public interest standard.
Respondent is, however, only required to accept responsibility for the misconduct which the Government has proven on the record. See Jeffrey P. Gunderson, 61 FR 26208, 26211 (1996) (a respondent must “admit to the full extent of his involvement in documented misconduct”). With respect to the alleged “unlawful dispensing to an unknown patient,” Exceptions at 8, the Government points to evidence that Respondent “dispensed hydrocodone to a transient without eve [sic] documenting that he ever saw this person as a patient at the time he dispensed the Vicodin.” Gov't Post-Hrng. Br. at 23. The Government argues that “[t]his incident is not just a `documentation' error but is tantamount to outright diversion.” Id. Yet, the ALJ found that Respondent “credibly testified that he had examined the patient on January 20, 2011, and observed that he needed a surgical extraction,” that “[w]hen the patient returned to [the clinic] on January 24, 2011, [Respondent] could not perform the extraction because of his busy schedule,” and that “[w]hen the patient reported experiencing pain symptoms, [he] agreed to provide him with hydrocodone to temporarily alleviate his symptoms.” R.D. at 14.
The Government did not, however, take exception to these findings.[7] Thus, while in its post-hearing brief, the Government argued that Respondent engaged in “outright diversion” when he provided hydrocodone to this patient, and in its Exceptions, it argues that he has failed to accept Start Printed Page 62685responsibility for the “unlawful dispensing,” I conclude that Government has offered no reason to reject the ALJ's findings. Moreover, Respondent acknowledged that he failed to properly document the dispensing. Tr. 523. Because Respondent accepted responsibility with respect to the only misconduct the Government proved with respect to this patient, I reject the Government's contention to the extent it relies on Respondent's act of dispensing a controlled substance to this patient.
At the hearing, Government counsel asked Respondent whether it was correct that he did not keep “a separate dispensing record when [he] started to use the Vicodin . . . that [he] had ordered.” Tr. 491. Respondent answered that this was “[a]bsolutely correct.” Id. When asked by the Government whether he had “the legal duty to keep accurate records of th[e] Vicodin supply,” Respondent answered: “I do.” Id. at 498. And when asked whether it was correct that because he “had the supply, . . . did the dispensing directly to the patients, . . . [he] had the obligations to keep an accurate patient chart as well as a log,” Respondent answered: “Absolutely. That's why I say I didn't do it right.” Id. at 499.
Subsequently, the Government asked Respondent whether “hav[ing] shortages and . . . overages” is “a violation of DEA law?” Id. at 509. Respondent answered that he knew that he had violated the State Board's order but that he did not know if this was a violation of federal law. Id. The Government then asked Respondent if it was “a violation of DEA law not to keep a separate dispensing log for narcotic controlled substances?” Id. at 509-10. Respondent answered:
Respondent also testified that he had abused the public trust in his handling of Vicodin while at the RVIHC. Tr. 539-40. While Respondent subsequently testified that there was a difference in degree between his previous violations and the violations he committed at RVIHC, he testified that “I abused the public trust here” and “I screwed up.” Id. And while his closing statement is not technically evidence, therein, Respondent stated: “I'm sorry that I made the mistakes in the past and then more recently.” Id. at 554.
Ignoring nearly all of the evidence which supports the ALJ's finding, the Government argues that “Respondent repeatedly minimized the significance of his dispensing-record violations.” Exceptions at 10. As support for this contention, it quotes Respondent's testimony that “we're talking about 40 tabs. . . . so I'm going to jeopardize my licenses for 40 Vicodin tabs . . . [f]or forty tabs?” [8] Respondent did not, however, offer this testimony to downplay the dispensing record violations but rather to respond to the insinuation (which permeates the proceeding but which is unproven on the record) that he had resumed self-abusing controlled substances. Accordingly, I reject the Government's contention that Respondent has failed to accept responsibility for his misconduct.
However, while I adopt the ALJ's finding that Respondent has accepted responsibility for his misconduct, I nonetheless conclude that the ALJ's proposed sanction does not adequately protect the public interest. As noted above, pursuant to the Dental Board's order which restored his dental license, Respondent was required to “maintain a record of all controlled substances prescribed, dispensed or administered by [him] during probation.” GX 7, at 7. This record was required to be maintained “in a separate file or ledger,” and to include, “in chronological order,” each patient's name and address, the date, the controlled substances and quantity, and “the pathology and purpose for which the controlled substance was furnished.” Id. Moreover, under federal law, Respondent was required to maintain a complete and accurate record of all controlled substances he dispensed. 21 U.S.C. 827(a)(3); 21 CFR 1304.22(c).
Notwithstanding the egregiousness of his prior misconduct, Respondent did not appreciate the forbearance shown by the Board [9] and this Agency in granting him a second chance. Accordingly, while Respondent's application will be granted, his registration will be subject to the following conditions:
1. Upon the granting of Respondent's application, his registration will be suspended outright for a period of six months. Thereafter, Respondent's Start Printed Page 62686registration will be suspended through the expiration of his registration; however, this portion of the suspension shall be stayed provided Respondent fully complies with the conditions imposed on his registration, the conditions of any existing or future Dental Board order which relate to the use or handling of controlled substances, as well as all federal and state controlled-substance laws and regulations.
Gail A. Randall, Administrative Law Judge. The Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA” or “Government”), issued an Order to Show Cause (“Order” or “OSC”) dated March 22, 2012, proposing to deny the application of Mark G. Medinnus, D.D.S. (“Respondent” or “Dr. Medinnus”) for a DEA Certificate of Registration pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(2)-(4) and § 823(f)(2)-(5), because the registration of the Respondent would be inconsistent with the public interest, as that term is used in 21 U.S.C. 823(f). [Administrative Law Judge Exhibit (“ALJ Exh.”) 1 at 1].
The Order also stated that on February 23, 2003, Respondent pled guilty to a felony violation of Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11173(a) (West 2012) for obtaining controlled substances by fraud. [Id.]. The Order stated that the basis of this conviction was Respondent's use of DEA Certificate of Registration BM0207678 to divert more than 30,000 dosage units of hydrocodone, lorazepam, and diazepam for his personal use from approximately January 2000 through November 2001. [Id.].
3. On July 30, 2008, Dr. Medinnus was granted DEA Certificate of Registration FM0982808 as a Start Printed Page 62687practitioner, in Schedules II through IV, at P.O. Box 459, Lewiston, CA 96052. This registration expired without a timely renewal on January 31, 2011.
On February 27, 2003, Dr. Medinnus pled guilty in Santa Clara County, California to one felony count of a violation of Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11173(a) (West 2012) for obtaining controlled substances by fraud. [Resp. Exh. 3]. Dr. Medinnus was sentenced to three years' probation. [Govt. Exh. 7 at 2]. Respondent successfully complied with all his probationary conditions and on April 27, 2006, Dr. Medinnus successfully petitioned to reduce his felony conviction to a misdemeanor pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 17(b)(3) (West 2012) and then dismissed pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 1203.4(a) (West 2012). [Resp. Exh. A-17; Tr. 350-351].
Pursuant to this felony conviction, the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) excluded Dr. Medinnus from participating as a healthcare provider in Medicare for a period of five years. [Resp. Exh. A86]. In addition, on June 23, 2004, the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) debarred Respondent from participating in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. [Resp. Exh. A87]. On April 20, 2009, HHS reinstated Respondent's eligibility to participate as a Medicare provider and OPM terminated Respondent's debarment from the Federal Employees Health Start Printed Page 62688Benefits Program. [Resp. Exh. A86-87; Tr. 356-357].
On November 29, 2010, Ms. Stillwell prepared a purchasing order to obtain supplies for RVIHC's dental department. Start Printed Page 62689[Govt. Exh. 10; Tr. 151]. At the direction of Dr. Medinnus, she included one bottle of hydrocodone and one bottle of APAP with codeine along with other routine dental supplies in the order. [Id.]. Prior to preparing the order, Dr. Medinnus directed Ms. Stillwell to obtain authorization for the purchase order from Mr. Russ, specifically concerning the inclusion of controlled substances in the order. [Tr. 153, 155]. Ms. Stillwell testified that she spoke to Mr. Russ before placing the purchase order. [Tr. 155]. During this conversation, Ms. Stillwell testified that Mr. Russ said he “did not feel it was a good idea” to order controlled substances for the dental department to dispense directly to patients. [Tr. 157-158]. Mr. Russ though could not recall the substance of this conversation with Ms. Stillwell at the hearing. [Tr. 50-51]. Despite Mr. Russ's misgivings, Ms. Stillwell informed Respondent that Mr. Russ had given his permission for the purchase order. [Tr. 158; Resp. Exh. A140].
Mr. Russ then directed Ms. Lohne to account for the apparent discrepancies from Respondent's dispensing log to the number of dosage units left in the bottle when Dr. Medinnus turned it in to the dispensary. [Tr. 69-70, 188-189]. Ms. Start Printed Page 62690Lohne began by determining that the bottle of hydrocodone originally contained five hundred dosage units when it was ordered from Henry Schein. [Tr. 198]. And when Dr. Medinnus provided the bottle to Ms. Lohne, she and another nurse physically counted the remaining pills and determined there were one hundred and forty dosage units left in the bottle. [Id.]. Then Ms. Lohne conducted a patient chart audit to verify the Respondent's dispensing log and she prepared a document summarizing the result of her review. [Govt. Exh. 12; Tr. 204-212].
The Government asserts that the appropriate remedy in this matter is denial of the Respondent's application. [Govt. Brief at 25-26]. First, the Government argues that by procuring the order of the bottle of hydrocodone and then subsequently surreptitiously dispensing it to dental patients, Respondent violated federal law, the terms of his DBC probation and his RVIHC contract. [Id. at 20-21]. Next, the Government cites Respondent's failure to maintain accurate dispensing records as further evidence of his unfitness to possess a DEA Registration. [Id. at 23-24]. Lastly, the Government cites Agency precedent and argues that Respondent's lack of candor at the Start Printed Page 62691hearing and his inability to accept responsibility for his conduct also supports the denial of Respondent's application. [Id. at 21-23].
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f) (2006),[1] the Deputy Administrator may deny an application for a DEA Certificate of Registration if he determines that such registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. In determining the public interest, the following factors are considered:
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. See Robert A. Leslie, M.D., 68 FR 15,227, 15,230 (DEA 2003). Moreover, the Deputy Administrator is “not required to make findings as to all of the factors.” Hoxie v. DEA, 419 F.3d 477, 482 (6th Cir. 2005); see also Morall v. DEA, 412 F.3d 165, 173-74 (D.C. Cir. 2005).
The Government bears the ultimate burden of proving that the requirements for registration are not satisfied. 21 CFR 1301.44(d) (2012). However, where the Government has made out a prima facie case that Respondent's application would be “inconsistent with the public interest,” the burden of production shifts to the applicant to “present[] sufficient mitigating evidence” to show why he can be entrusted with a new registration. See Medicine Shoppe—Jonesborough, 73 FR 364, 387 (DEA 2008). To this point, the Agency has repeatedly held that the “registrant must accept responsibility for [his] actions and demonstrate that [he] will not engage in future misconduct.” Medicine Shoppe—Jonesborough, 73 FR at 387; see also Samuel S. Jackson, D.D.S., 72 FR 23,848, 23,853 (DEA 2007). In short, after the Government makes its prima facie case, the Respondent must produce sufficient evidence that he can be entrusted with the authority that a registration provides by demonstrating that he accepts responsibility for his misconduct and that the misconduct will not reoccur.
Although the recommendation of the applicable state licensing board is probative to this factor, the Agency possesses “a separate oversight responsibility with respect to the handling of controlled substances” and therefore must make an “independent Start Printed Page 62692determination as to whether the granting of [a registration] would be in the public interest.” Mortimer B. Levin, D.O., 55 FR 8,209, 8,210 (DEA 1990); see also Jayam Krishna-Iyer,M.D., 74 FR 459, 461 (DEA 2009). The ultimate responsibility to determine whether a registration is consistent with the public interest has been delegated exclusively to the DEA, not to entities within state government. Edmund Chein, M.D., 72 FR 6,580, 6,590 (DEA 2007), aff'd, Chein v. DEA, 533 F.3d 828 (D.C. Cir. 2008). So while not dispositive, state board recommendations are relevant on the issue of revoking or maintaining a DEA registration. See Gregory D. Owens, D.D.S., 74 FR 36,751, 36,755 (DEA 2009); Martha Hernandez, M.D., 62 FR 61,145, 61,147 (DEA 1997).
The record contains evidence that the Respondent has been convicted of an offense related to the manufacture, distribution or dispensing of controlled substances, namely his 2003 felony conviction for violating Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11173(a) (West 2012) for obtaining controlled substances by fraud. [Resp. Exh. 3]. Thus, I find that this factor weighs against the granting of Respondent's application for a DEA Certificate of Registration. Scott H. Nearing, 70 FR 33,200, 33,202 (DEA 2005).
Yet, I find that the Respondent has successfully addressed his addiction problem and returned to the practice of dentistry by regaining his dental license in 2007. At the hearing, Dr. Medinnus proffered substantial and detailed evidence regarding his impressive recovery program, including numerous negative drug screens he has taken over the past nine years. [Resp. Brief at 2-7, 9-10]. As the Deputy Administrator has previously determined, “[t]he paramount issue is not how much time has elapsed since [the Respondent's] unlawful conduct, but rather, whether during that time [the] Respondent has learned from past mistakes and has demonstrated that he would handle controlled substances properly if entrusted with a DEA registration.” Leonardo V. Lopez, M.D., 54 FR 36,915 (DEA 1989). Even though it has been previously found that time, alone, is not dispositive in such situations, it is certainly an appropriate factor to be considered. See Robert G. Hallermeier, M.D., 62 FR 26,818 (DEA 1997) (four years); John Porter Richards, D.O., 61 FR 13,878 (DEA 1996) (ten years); Norman Alpert, M.D., 58 FR 67,420, 67,421 (DEA 1993) (seven years). In this case, Respondent has conclusively demonstrated his strong recovery from his previous addiction and his successful maintenance of his sobriety for the past nine years. Therefore, I find that Respondent's history of substance abuse does not weigh against the granting of Respondent's application for a DEA Certificate of Registration.
Under the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA” or “the Act”) and Agency regulations, it is fundamental that a practitioner who directly dispenses controlled substances maintain an effective recordkeeping system. This includes maintaining inventories and other records pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827(a) (2006). They are also required to hold a DEA registration at any location where they dispense controlled substances, see 21 CFR 1301.12 (2012), and to store controlled substances “in a securely locked, substantially constructed cabinet,” id. § 1301.75. Lastly, practitioners who provide controlled substances directly to patients must maintain written records of such dispensing covering a minimum of two years; take an initial inventory of all controlled substances on hand and biennial inventories thereafter; and maintain records of receipts, dispensings, and transfers of controlled substances. See id. §§ 1304.03(b), 1304.04, 1304.11, 1304.21, 1304.22(c); see also Shawn M. Gallegos, D.D.S., 76 FR 66,986 (DEA 2011).
First, with regards to the unauthorized purchase allegation, I find that the Government has not sustained its burden of proof. The testimony and evidence elicited at the hearing regarding this purchase order does not support the Government's claim that Respondent was unauthorized to place the order. Dr. Medinnus credibily maintained that Ms. Stillwell told him that Mr. Russ approved the order. [Tr. 158; Resp. Exh. A140; Resp. Brief at 28-31]. As explained above, I decline to credit much of Ms. Stillwell's testimony on her conversation with Mr. Russ regarding this order. Furthermore, I also note that Mr. Russ failed to recall many of the details surrounding this particular order including any conversation he had with Ms. Stillwell prior to the submission of the order to Ms. Scribner. Thus, the evidence in the record does not support a conclusion by a preponderance of the evidence that Dr. Medinnus was responsible for knowingly submitting an unauthorized purchase order for controlled substances. More tellingly, the submission of the purchase order on behalf of the dental department and its subsequent approval by Jan Scribner, a duly authorized RVIHC representative Start Printed Page 62693who had the power to approve such orders, appears to belie any contention that the order itself was unauthorized by RVIHC management. While it is likely that RVIHC management, including Mr. Russ and Ms. Lohne, failed to remember that Dr. Medinnus had obtained a bottle of hydrocodone for emergency use, I conclude that the record does not show that the placement of the November 29, 2010 purchase order was unauthorized.
After the Government “has proved that a registrant has committed acts inconsistent with the public interest, a registrant must `present sufficient mitigating evidence to assure the Administrator that [he] can be entrusted with the responsibility carried by such a registration.' ” Medicine Shoppe—Jonesborough, 73 FR 364, 387 (DEA 2008) (quoting Samuel S. Jackson, D.D.S., 72 FR 23,848, 23,853 (DEA 2007). “Moreover, because `past performance is the best predictor of future performance,' Alra Labs., Inc. v. DEA, 54 F.3d 450, 452 (7th Cir. 1995), “[DEA] has repeatedly held that where a registrant has committed acts inconsistent with the public interest, the registrant must accept responsibility for his actions and demonstrate that he will not engage in future misconduct.” Medicine Shoppe—Jonesborough, 73 FR at 387; see also Samuel S. Jackson, D.D.S., 72 FR 23, 848, 23,853 (DEA 2007); Hoxie v. DEA, 419 F.3d 477, 483 (6th Cir. 2005) (“admitting fault” is “properly consider[ed]” by DEA to be an “important factor[]” in the public interest determination).
In light of the substantial evidence that Respondent proffered regarding his acceptance of responsibility for the misconduct, I find that the Government's proposed sanction, the denial of Respondent's application, is too severe. As this Agency has repeatedly held, a proceeding under the Act “ `is a remedial measure, based upon the public interest and the necessity to protect the public from those individuals who have misused . . . their DEA Certificate of Registration, and who have not presented sufficient mitigating evidence to assure the Administrator that they can be entrusted with the responsibility carried by such a registration.' ” Jon Karl Dively, D.D.S., 72 FR 74,332, 74,334 (DEA 2007) (quoting Samuel S. Jackson, D.D.S., 72 FR 23,848, 23,853 (DEA 2007)). Despite the Government's strenuous arguments to the contrary, I find that Dr. Medinnus' restricted registration does not represent a danger to the public interest. Indeed, Dr. Medinnus has sensibly requested the issuance of a restricted registration, which would ensure that he avoid any repeat of the recordkeeping violations he committed while at RVIHC. While his misconduct was indeed serious, Dr. Medinnus has now demonstrated that he understands the responsibilities and requirements of a DEA registrant.
Therefore, I conclude that the DEA has met its burden of proof and has established that grounds exist for denying the Respondent's application for a DEA Certificate of Registration. I do not condone nor minimize the seriousness of the Respondent's misconduct. However, based on this record, I recommend that the Respondent be afforded an opportunity to demonstrate that he can again responsibly handle controlled substance prescriptions by the granting of a restricted registration. See Cecil E. Oakes, Jr., M.D., 63 FR 11,907, 11,910 (DEA 1998) (“Such a resolution will provide Respondent with the opportunity to demonstrate that he can responsibly handle controlled substances, while at the same time protect the public health and safety, by providing a mechanism for rapid detection of any improper activity.”). The Agency has previously held that “such restrictions must be related to what the Government has alleged and proved in any case.” Janet L. Thornton, D.O., 73 FR 50,354, 50,356 (DEA 2008).
Consistently, I suggest that the conditions in this case be tailored to ensure that the Respondent does not personally handle or dispense controlled substances. Thus, they should include: That the registration restricts his handling of controlled substances to merely prescribing and not storing, administering or dispensing Start Printed Page 62694such drugs and that he be prohibited from prescribing controlled substances to himself or any family member. Further, I recommend that the Respondent be ordered to comply with the terms of his DBC probation and promptly notify the DEA if the DBC takes any action against his dental license. Lastly, I recommend that he maintain and provide quarterly prescription logs for all controlled substances prescriptions he authorizes to the local DEA office for monitoring. I recommend these restrictions apply for three years from the date of the final order so directing this result. In this way, the Respondent may safely continue his return to the full practice of dentistry, and the DEA can assure itself of the Respondent's compliance with DEA regulations as well as the protection of the public interest.
3. At issue in Ryan was whether an Agency was required to defer to an ALJ's finding that an applicant for a trader's license “was fully rehabilitated and not a threat to the integrity of the [commodities] markets,” which was based on the ALJ having found credible the testimony of the applicant's character witnesses. See 145 F.3d at 918. The Commission discredited the testimony because “almost every one can produce” a character witness who will testify as to his/her “belief that the defendant will not repeat his violative conduct,” and because the “testimony reflected at most a perfunctory concern with the customers harmed by Ryan's wrongdoing.” Id. (internal citation omitted).
The Seventh Circuit held that the Commission could “discredit the weight of a witness's testimony without impinging on an ALJ's credibility determinations.” Id. As the court of appeals further explained:
8. The Government points to several other portions of Respondent's testimony which it asserts provide evidence that he has not admitted to his misconduct. See Exceptions at 8-9. As support for these assertions, the Government did not cite to the specific pages of the transcript or exhibits, as is required by DEA's regulation, see 21 CFR 1316.66(a), but to a document which is abbreviated as “FCA.” Id. Nowhere in its Exceptions does the Government identify what this term means, and while it may be a reference to the Government's proposed findings of fact, conclusion of law, and argument, the Agency has previously held that citation to a post-hearing brief does not comply with the regulation and is ground to reject an exception. See Carlos Gonzales, 76 FR 63118, 63119 (2011).
In any event, I have considered the entirety of Respondent's testimony in reviewing the ALJ's finding and conclude that much of the testimony cited by the Government is not probative of whether he has accepted responsibility for his failure to maintain accurate records. For example, the Government contends that “Respondent did not admit to wrongdoing when he was asked during cross-examination whether the audit shortages could be partially attributable to the hydrocodone he gave to the transient patient.” Exceptions at 9. A review of what appears to be the relevant portion of the transcript shows that the Government asked Respondent whether the forty dosage unit shortage “could be accounted for, if not in total, at least in part based on the amount of Vicodin that [he] dispensed to [the] transient that did not get charted.” Tr. 528. Respondent answered: “I suppose some of the Vicodin, some of those 40 tabs could have been it. I don't know. I'm confused. Do you want me to confess to something?” Id. The Government offers no further explanation as to why this testimony supports rejection of the ALJ's finding.
9. As the ALJ found, Respondent has a history of substance abuse and in February 2003, pled guilty to one felony count of obtaining controlled substances by fraud in violation of Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11173(a). R.D. at 8. While upon Respondent's successful completion of his probation, the conviction was reduced to a misdemeanor and then dismissed entirely, the record shows that Respondent unlawfully obtained approximately 30,000 dosage units of controlled substances. GX 3; GX 4, at 4-5; GX 5, at 2.