Opinion ID: 1729600
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: facts relating to parker's failure to maintain a controlled substance log for triazolam

Text: The events leading to Parker's initial discipline in 2001 would have justified the revocation of his DEA registration as a practitioner authorized to handle Schedule II through V controlled substances. [2] But the DEA agreed not to revoke his DEA registration if he complied with the terms of a Memorandum of Understanding. Under those terms, Parker agreed that until January 23, 2006, he would maintain a log of all controlled substances he prescribed. The State alleged that Parker had admitted his office did not maintain a controlled substance log for Triazolam (a Schedule IV controlled substance allegedly used in the office). According to the State, Parker's failure to maintain the log was a ground for discipline. Triazolam is a prescription drug that patients brought to their appointments for possible sedation during their procedures. Newman testified he had information that if any tablets remained after the patient's procedure, the office would use those tablets for other patients. According to Newman, Parker told him this procedure had not been in practice for some time, but Parker admitted that four or five times in the past, he had used the extra Triazolam on his patients. Newman's investigation report explained that Parker stated neither he nor the clinic maintained a controlled substance log for the Triazolam. At the hearing, Parker disputed Newman's testimony about the Triazolam. Parker testified that to his knowledge, the office did not keep scheduled substances. Parker acknowledged that in the past, other providers in the office may have kept Triazolam, but once he became the owner of the practice, he requested that the Triazolam not be retained in the office. Parker denied Newman's allegation that Parker had used the extra Triazolam four or five times. An employee testifying for Parker stated that Parker did not authorize the retention of medications in the office. The employee testified that if any medication remained after the patient's procedure, the medication was disposed of in the toilet or sink.