Opinion ID: 900358
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Violation of Conditions for Medical Staff Privileges

Text: [¶ 9.] Sorrels' waiver of his contractual right to a due process hearing applies only in the event he violated a condition imposed upon his staff privileges. Obviously, the Hospital had no obligation to grant Sorrels any privileges in 1995 after he entered a plea in response to federal drug charges. His request was, however, granted subject to strict compliance with certain conditions. Though he maintains substantial questions remain on how the conditions were to be applied to his practice at the Hospital, the first condition was certain: Sorrels relinquished all staff privileges requiring a DEA permit. See Wessington Springs Educ. Ass'n v. Wessington Springs Sch. Dist., No. 36-2, 467 N.W.2d 101, 104 (S.D.1991) (quoting AFSCME Local 1922 v. State, 444 N.W.2d 10, 12 (S.D.1989)) (When the terms of a negotiated agreement are clear and unambiguous, and the agreement actually addresses the subjects it is expected to cover, `there is no need to go beyond the four corners of the contract.'). [¶ 10.] Instructive in revealing the full impact of losing the DEA permit is the language of the plea agreement: Sorrels understands that by signing this agreement and surrendering his Certificate, he will be no longer authorized to prescribe, administer, dispense, order, possess, or in any manner handle controlled substances. Despite this understanding and in disregard of the clear strictures in Condition 1, Sorrels prescribed a controlled substance. He argues he honestly believed he could have other physicians later co-sign his orders. If not reason and common sense, then federal law thoroughly refutes this anomalous posture. To follow his logic, surrendering his DEA permit was pointlesshe never needed one. Nevertheless, doctors may only dispense controlled substances to the extent authorized by their [DEA] registration. 21 U.S.C. § 822 (Controlled Substances Act). The term dispense includes both prescribing and administering drugs. 21 U.S.C. § 802(10). Prohibited from dispensing, therefore, by no authority could he co-dispense. These facts adequately attest to a violation of Condition 1. Next, we examine the waiver.