81_FR_47556 81 FR 47416 - James Dustin Chaney, D.O.; Decision and Order

81 FR 47416 - James Dustin Chaney, D.O.; Decision and Order

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 140 (July 21, 2016)

Page Range47416-47418
FR Document2016-17250

Federal Register, Volume 81 Issue 140 (Thursday, July 21, 2016)
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 140 (Thursday, July 21, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47416-47418]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17250]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. 16-12]


James Dustin Chaney, D.O.; Decision and Order

    On November 13, 2015, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 
Diversion Control, issued an Order to Show Cause to James Dustin 
Chaney, D.O. (Respondent), of Hazard, Kentucky. The Show Cause Order 
proposed the revocation of Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration 
BC8483430, pursuant to which he is authorized to dispense controlled 
substances in schedules II through V, and the denial of any pending 
applications to renew or modify his registration or for any other 
registration, on the ground that he does not have authority to handle 
controlled substances in Kentucky, the State in which he holds his DEA 
registration. Show Cause Order, at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 823(f); 
824(a)(3)).
    The Show Cause Order alleged that Respondent is registered as a 
practitioner with authority to dispense schedule II through V 
controlled substances at the registered location of 1908 North Main 
Street, Hazard, KY. Id. The Order further alleged that while 
Respondent's registration was due to expire on August 31, 2015, on 
August 25, 2015, he filed a timely renewal application and thus, his 
registration

[[Page 47417]]

remains in effect until the issuance of this Final Order. Id. (citing 5 
U.S.C. 558(c); 21 CFR 1301.13(b)).
    As for the factual basis for the proposed action, the Show Cause 
Order alleged that on August 22, 2014, the Kentucky Board of Medical 
Licensure had affirmed the Emergency Order of Suspension which was 
issued to Respondent on June 30, 2014. Id. While the Show Cause Order 
acknowledged that the suspension of Respondent's license to practice 
osteopathic medicine had been subsequently vacated, it further alleged 
that to the extent the Emergency Order had suspended Respondent's 
authority to dispense controlled substances, this prohibition remains 
in effect. Id. at 1-2. The Show Cause Order thus alleged that 
Respondent is currently without authority to dispense controlled 
substances in Kentucky, and therefore, his registration is subject to 
revocation. Id. at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 802(21), 823(f), and 824(a)(3)).
    On November 23, 2015, the Show Cause Order, which also notified 
Respondent of his right to request a hearing on the allegations, was 
served on Respondent by certified mail, return receipt requested. On 
December 16, 2015, Respondent, through his counsel, requested a 
hearing; the matter was placed on the docket of the Office of 
Administrative Law Judges and assigned to Chief Administrative Law 
Judge (CALJ) John J. Mulrooney, II. The next day, the CALJ ordered the 
Government to file evidence supporting the allegation and a motion for 
summary disposition by December 31, 2015; in the event the Government 
filed a motion, the CALJ directed Respondent to file its reply by 
January 15, 2016.
    On December 21, 2015, the Government filed its Motion for Summary 
Disposition. As support for its motion, the Government attached a copy 
of the Board's June 30, 2014 Emergency Order of Suspension and the 
Board's August 22, 2014 Findings Of Fact, Conclusions Of Law, And Final 
Order. Thereafter, Respondent filed a ``Response [t]o Government's 
Motion for Summary Judgment.''
    On January 19, 2016, the CALJ granted the Government's motion, 
finding that there was no dispute as to the material fact that 
Respondent is without authority to handle controlled substances in 
Kentucky, and that therefore, Respondent ``is not entitled to maintain 
his DEA registration.'' Order Granting Government's Motion for Summary 
Disposition and Recommended Ruling, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of 
Law, and Decision of the Administrative Law Judge, at 5-6. The CALJ 
further recommended that Respondent's registration be revoked and that 
any pending application to renew his registration be denied. Id. at 6.
    Neither party filed exceptions to the CALJ's decision. Thereafter, 
the record was forwarded to me for Final Agency Action. Having 
considered the record in its entirety, I have decided to adopt the 
ALJ's factual findings, legal conclusions and recommended sanction. I 
make the following findings.

Findings

    Respondent is the holder of DEA Certificate of Registration 
BC8483430, pursuant to which he is authorized to dispense controlled 
substances in schedules II through V as a practitioner at the 
registered address of Mountain After Hours Clinic, 1908 North Main 
Street, Hazard, KY 41701. Mot. for Summ. Disp., at Attachment 1. While 
this registration was due to expire on August 31, 2015, on August 25, 
2015, Respondent submitted a renewal application. Id. Thus, 
Respondent's registration remains active pending the issuance of this 
Decision and Order. 5 U.S.C. 558(c).
    Respondent is also the holder of a license to practice osteopathy 
issued by the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure. Mot. for Summ. 
Disp., Attachment 3, at 1. However, ``[o]n or about June 5, 2014,'' 
Respondent ``was indicted on two (2) counts of knowingly and 
intentionally conspiring to distribute and unlawfully dispense Schedule 
II and III controlled substances,'' in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) 
and 846. Id. Respondent was also ``indicted on one (1) count of having 
knowingly open[ed], lease[d], rent[ed], use[d] and maintain[ed] a place 
(to wit [a pain management clinic]] . . . for the purpose of 
distributing and unlawfully dispensing controlled substances . . . in 
violation of 21 U.S.C. 856(a)(1).'' Id. at 2.
    Based on the above, the Board's Inquiry Panel found, inter alia, 
that probable cause existed to believe that Respondent had ``[e]ngaged 
in dishonorable, unethical, or unprofessional conduct of a character 
likely to deceive, defraud, or harm the public or any member thereof,'' 
and that he ``[v]iolated or attempted to violate,'' abetted, or 
conspired to violate ``any medical practice act, including . . . any 
other valid regulation of the board.'' Id. (citing Ky. Rev. Stat. Sec.  
311.595(9) & (12)). The Inquiry Panel further noted that under the 
Board's regulations, ``[i]f a licensee is indicted in any state for a 
crime classified as a felony in that state and the conduct charged 
relates to a controlled substance, that licensee's practice shall be 
considered an immediate danger to the public health, safety, or 
welfare,'' and that upon ``receiv[ing] verifiable information that a 
licensee has been indicted'' for such a felony, ``the inquiry panel . . 
. shall immediately issue an emergency order suspending or restricting 
that licensee's Kentucky license.'' Id. at 3 (quoting 201 Ky. Admin. 
Regs. 9:240, Sec.  3). The Inquiry Panel thus ordered that Respondent's 
license to practice osteopathy be suspended. Id. at 4.
    Thereafter, Respondent sought judicial review of the Emergency 
Order of Suspension in state court. Mot. for Summ. Disp., at Attachment 
4, at 9. He also requested an administrative hearing to challenge the 
Emergency Suspension. Id. at 1.
    On August 11, 2014, the state court issued a temporary injunction 
which enjoined the Board from enforcing the suspension. Id. at 9. The 
state court, however, ``kept in place the prohibition against 
[Respondent's] prescribing, dispensing, or otherwise utilizing a 
controlled substance . . . pending the issuance of'' the Board's Order. 
Id.
    On August 15, 2014, a Hearing Officer conducted a hearing at which 
Respondent was allowed to challenge the Emergency Suspension. Id. at 1. 
Following the hearing, the Hearing Officer found that ``there is 
probable cause to believe [Respondent] engaged in misconduct in 
violation of the Board's statutes and that his practice of medicine 
constitutes a danger to the health, welfare, and safety of his patients 
or the general practice.'' Id. at 2. However, consistent with the 
injunction, the Hearing Officer modified the suspension to allow 
Respondent to ``continue to practice osteopathy,'' while prohibiting 
him ``from prescribing, dispensing, or otherwise utilizing a controlled 
substance in Kentucky.'' Id.
    According to the online records of the Kentucky Board, the 
prohibition on Respondent's authority to dispense controlled substances 
remains in effect as of this date. I therefore find that Respondent is 
without authority to dispense controlled substances in Kentucky, the 
State in which he holds his DEA registration.

Discussion

    Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), ``[a] registration . . . to . . . 
dispense a controlled substance . . . may be suspended or revoked by 
the Attorney General upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had 
his State license or registration suspended, revoked, or denied by 
competent State authority

[[Page 47418]]

and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . 
dispensing of controlled substances.'' This Agency has further held 
that notwithstanding that this provision grants the Agency authority to 
suspend or revoke a registration, other provisions of the Controlled 
Substances Act ``make plain that a practitioner can neither obtain nor 
maintain a DEA registration unless the practitioner currently has 
authority under state law to handle controlled substances.'' James L. 
Hooper, 76 FR 71371, 71372 (2011), pet. for rev. denied, Hooper v. 
Holder, 481 F. App'x 826 (4th Cir. 2012).
    These provisions include section 102(21), which defines the term 
``practitioner'' to ``mean[] a physician . . . licensed, registered, or 
otherwise permitted, by . . . the jurisdiction in which he practices . 
. . to distribute, dispense, [or] administer . . . a controlled 
substance in the course of professional practice,'' 21 U.S.C. 802(21), 
as well as section 303(f), which directs that ``[t]he Attorney General 
shall register practitioners . . . to dispense . . . controlled 
substances . . . if the applicant is authorized to dispense . . . 
controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he 
practices.'' Id. Sec.  823(f). Based on these provisions, the Agency 
has long held that revocation is warranted even where a state board has 
summarily suspended a practitioner's controlled substances authority 
and the state's order remains subject to challenge in either 
administrative or judicial proceedings. See Gary Alfred Shearer, 78 FR 
19009 (2013); Carmencita E. Gallora, 60 FR 47967 (1995).
    Respondent nonetheless maintains that the proposed revocation of 
his registration would violate his right to due process because the 
Hearing Officer applied the wrong standard of proof when he upheld the 
Emergency Suspension Order. Response to Govt's Mot. for Summ. Judgment, 
at 4-8. According to Respondent, this is so because in holding that the 
Suspension Order was justified by Respondent's indictment, the Hearing 
Officer applied a probable cause standard rather than the substantial 
evidence standard as required by Kentucky law, and thus, the Hearing 
Officer's decision is arbitrary and capricious. Id. at 5. Respondent 
argues that he ``established with overwhelming and uncontested evidence 
that his practice of medicine is NOT a danger to the health, welfare, 
and safety of his patients or the general public.'' Id. And he further 
argues that ``the Hearing Officer improperly placed the risk of non-
persuasion on [him] and applied the [Board's] unconstitutional 
regulatory provisions allowing an indictment alone to serve as 
substantial evidence of a violation of law.'' Id. at 7.
    However, ```DEA has repeatedly held that a registrant cannot 
collaterally attack the results of a state criminal or administrative 
proceeding in a proceeding brought under section 304 [21 U.S.C. 824] of 
the CSA.''' Calvin Ramsey, 76 FR 20034, 20036 (2011) (quoting Hicham K. 
Riba, 73 FR 75773, 75774 (2008) (other citations omitted)); see also 
Shahid Musud Siddiqui, 61 FR 14818 (1996); Robert A. Leslie, 60 FR 
14004 (1995). DEA is not vested with authority to adjudicate either the 
constitutionality of the Board's Suspension Order, or whether the 
Board's Order is arbitrary and capricious. Respondent must therefore 
seek relief from the State Board's Order in those administrative and 
judicial forums provided by the State.
    In a revocation proceeding brought under section 824(a)(3), the 
only issue is whether a respondent holds current authority to dispense 
controlled substances. Respondent's various contentions as to the 
validity of the Board's order are therefore not material to this 
Agency's resolution of whether he is entitled to maintain his DEA 
registration. Because it is undisputed that Respondent does not hold 
authority under the laws of Kentucky to dispense controlled substances, 
he no longer meets the definition of a practitioner under the CSA and 
thus, he is not entitled to maintain his registration. See, e.g., 
Hooper, 76 FR at 71372. Accordingly, I will order that Respondent's 
registration be revoked and that any pending application to renew or 
modify this registration be denied.

Order

    Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a) and 
823(f), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I order that DEA Certificate of 
Registration BC8483430 issued to James Dustin Chaney, D.O., be, and it 
hereby is, revoked. I further order that any application of James 
Dustin Chaney, D.O., to renew or modify this registration, be, and it 
hereby is, denied. This Order is effective August 22, 2016.

    Dated: July 11, 2016.
Chuck Rosenberg,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-17250 Filed 7-20-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4410-09-P



                                                    47416                          Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 140 / Thursday, July 21, 2016 / Notices

                                                    admission of the allegations. Thus, the                  patient at Respondent, and which Ms.                       Order
                                                    Government had the burden of proving                     Fuller-McMahan admitted she intended                         Pursuant to the authority vested in me
                                                    its claim that Ms. Fuller-McMahan was                    to provide to C.G., a counselor at                         by 21 U.S.C. 824(a) and (d), I hereby
                                                    likely to trade Respondent’s methadone                   Respondent. Yet even here, there is no                     declare the Order of Immediate
                                                    for cocaine.                                             evidence that Ms. Fuller-McMahan                           Suspension issued to Turning Tide, Inc.,
                                                       However, the Government’s evidence                    either traded methadone for the cocaine
                                                                                                                                                                        ultra vires. This Order is effective
                                                    as to the alleged proposal of Ms. Fuller-                she received from J.R. or that she
                                                                                                                                                                        immediately.
                                                    McMahan to trade methadone to M.K. in                    intended to provide the cocaine to C.B.
                                                    exchange for cocaine is so lacking in                    for methadone.                                               Dated: July 15, 2016.
                                                    indicia of reliability that it does not                     Moreover, notwithstanding M.K.’s                        Chuck Rosenberg,
                                                    support the requisite finding under                      allegation, there is no evidence that the                  Acting Administrator.
                                                    section 823(g)(1). Notably, M.K.’s                       Government ever audited Respondent’s                       [FR Doc. 2016–17245 Filed 7–20–16; 8:45 am]
                                                    statement is hearsay,6 and there is no                   recordkeeping to determine whether                         BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
                                                    evidence that M.K., who has not been                     Respondent’s methadone was missing or
                                                    identified, was under oath when she                      that it developed any reliable evidence
                                                    provided the statement. Also, the MDEA                   that Ms. Fuller-McMahan was diverting                      DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
                                                    Agent acknowledged that M.K. had                         methadone. See 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1)(B).
                                                    offered ‘‘to speak to [him] in exchange                  Nor did the Government produce any                         Drug Enforcement Administration
                                                    for consideration with M.K.’s pending                    evidence that Respondent’s
                                                    drug charges.’’ GX 15, at 2.                             recordkeeping was inadequate.9 Id. In                      [Docket No. 16–12]
                                                    Notwithstanding that the MDEA Agent                      short, while the Government has
                                                    further explained that ‘‘no promises                     established that Ms. Fuller-McMahan                        James Dustin Chaney, D.O.; Decision
                                                    were made to M.K. in exchange for any                    violated the MOA and this would have                       and Order
                                                    information she might divulge,’’                         supported the issuance of an Order to
                                                                                                                                                                          On November 13, 2015, the Deputy
                                                    informants typically do not provide                      Show Cause, the Government’s
                                                                                                                                                                        Assistant Administrator, Office of
                                                    information without some expectation                     principal justification for immediately
                                                                                                                                                                        Diversion Control, issued an Order to
                                                    of receiving favorable treatment and                     suspending Respondent’s registration
                                                                                                                                                                        Show Cause to James Dustin Chaney,
                                                    have ample motive to shade their                         and seizing the drugs is not supported
                                                                                                                                                                        D.O. (Respondent), of Hazard, Kentucky.
                                                    statements. Nor did the MDEA Agent’s                     by substantial evidence but rests on a
                                                    affidavit provide any additional facts                   hunch. Accordingly, I hold that the                        The Show Cause Order proposed the
                                                    tending to establish that M.K. had                       Immediate Suspension Order is ultra                        revocation of Respondent’s DEA
                                                    provided reliable information in other                   vires and the resulting seizure of                         Certificate of Registration BC8483430,
                                                    matters, or that the information M.K.                    Respondent’s methadone was unlawful.                       pursuant to which he is authorized to
                                                    provided regarding Ms. Fuller-                           See Norman Bridge, 529 F.2d at 828                         dispense controlled substances in
                                                    McMahan was otherwise corroborated.7                     (‘‘Such a suspension, or such a seizure,                   schedules II through V, and the denial
                                                       In short, this type of statement has                  may be invoked only to avoid imminent                      of any pending applications to renew or
                                                    been traditionally viewed by the courts                  danger to the public health and safety.                    modify his registration or for any other
                                                    as inherently unreliable, and as such,                   In the absence of that factor there can be                 registration, on the ground that he does
                                                    M.K.’s statement cannot be given any                     no suspension and no seizure without                       not have authority to handle controlled
                                                    weight in this decision. See, e.g., Carlos               notice and an opportunity to be                            substances in Kentucky, the State in
                                                    Gonzales, 76 FR 63118, 63119–20                          heard.’’).10                                               which he holds his DEA registration.
                                                    (2011). And even if the Government had                                                                              Show Cause Order, at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C.
                                                    established that M.K.’s statement was                       9 The Government also argues that ‘‘there was no        823(f); 824(a)(3)).
                                                    reliable, this interview, which occurred                 evidence that Respondent’s employees . . . were              The Show Cause Order alleged that
                                                    more than nine months prior to the                       taking any steps to minimize that risk,’’ i.e., the risk   Respondent is registered as a
                                                                                                             that Ms. Fuller-McMahan was diverting                      practitioner with authority to dispense
                                                    issuance of the Immediate Suspension                     Respondent’s methadone. Second Req. for Final
                                                    Order, could not support a finding of                    Agency Action, at 14. However, the Government              schedule II through V controlled
                                                    imminent danger and the subsequent                       has the burden of proving that Respondent’s                substances at the registered location of
                                                    seizure of the drugs.8 See, e.g., Norman                 methadone was being diverted. Moreover, it bears           1908 North Main Street, Hazard, KY. Id.
                                                                                                             noting that under the Maine Board of Pharmacy’s            The Order further alleged that while
                                                    Bridge Drug Co. v. Banner, 529 F.2d                      rules, Respondent was required to have a licensed
                                                    822, 829 (5th Cir. 1976).                                pharmacist overseeing its pharmacy, and ‘‘[t]he            Respondent’s registration was due to
                                                       Thus, the only evidence which                         pharmacist in charge is responsible legally and            expire on August 31, 2015, on August
                                                    arguably supports the Immediate                          professionally for all activities related to the           25, 2015, he filed a timely renewal
                                                                                                             practice of pharmacy within the opioid treatment           application and thus, his registration
                                                    Suspension Order and seizure of                          program for which the licensee is registered as
                                                    Respondent’s methadone stock is the                      pharmacist in charge, and for the opioid treatment
                                                    arrest of Ms. Fuller-McMahan for the                     program’s compliance with . . . federal and state          the benefit of the registrant, or his successor in
                                                    possession of cocaine and the syringes,                  laws and rules,’’ including the CSA and DEA                interest. The Attorney General shall notify a
                                                                                                             regulations. 02–392 CMR 36 § 4; see also 02–392            registrant, or his successor in interest, who has any
                                                    which she had received from J.R., a                      CMR 29 § 1.                                                controlled substance . . . seized or placed under seal
                                                                                                                10 In a June 29, 2015 letter, the Special Agent in      of the procedures to be followed to secure the
                                                      6 While M.K.’s statement is actually hearsay
                                                                                                             Charge of the New England Field Division wrote to          return of the controlled substance . . . and the
                                                    within hearsay, I have no reason to question the                                                                    conditions under which it will be returned. The
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES




                                                                                                             Ms. Fuller-McMahan that ‘‘[a]lthough the controlled
                                                    MDEA Agent’s recounting of the facts surrounding         substances were seized pursuant to an Immediate            Attorney General may not dispose of any controlled
                                                    M.K.’s agreeing to provide the statement or that he      Suspension Order, they are also being held by              substance . . . seized or placed under seal under this
                                                    has accurately testified as to the substance of M.K.’s   virtue of the fact that your registration expired on       subsection until the expiration of one hundred and
                                                    statement.                                               November 30, 2010, resulting in your not having            eighty days from the date such substance . . . was
                                                      7 Likewise, the Government did not produce the                                                                    seized or placed under seal.
                                                                                                             any authority to handle controlled substances.’’
                                                    entirety of M.K.’s statement and thus, there is no       However, to the extent the Government retained               21 U.S.C. 824(g). The Government has provided
                                                    way to evaluate the internal consistency of the          possession of the controlled substances based on           no evidence that it complied with the procedures
                                                    statement.                                               the expiration of Respondent’s registration, 21            required by this subsection. Accordingly, the
                                                      8 The record does not establish when the MDEA          U.S.C. 824(g) provides that:                               propriety of the seizure must be evaluated under
                                                    Agent first told DEA about M.K.’s allegations.           [s]uch controlled substances . . . shall be held for       the standards of subsection 824(d) and (f).



                                               VerDate Sep<11>2014   18:36 Jul 20, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00073   Fmt 4703   Sfmt 4703    E:\FR\FM\21JYN1.SGM      21JYN1


                                                                                   Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 140 / Thursday, July 21, 2016 / Notices                                             47417

                                                    remains in effect until the issuance of                  CALJ further recommended that                         controlled substance, that licensee’s
                                                    this Final Order. Id. (citing 5 U.S.C.                   Respondent’s registration be revoked                  practice shall be considered an
                                                    558(c); 21 CFR 1301.13(b)).                              and that any pending application to                   immediate danger to the public health,
                                                       As for the factual basis for the                      renew his registration be denied. Id. at              safety, or welfare,’’ and that upon
                                                    proposed action, the Show Cause Order                    6.                                                    ‘‘receiv[ing] verifiable information that a
                                                    alleged that on August 22, 2014, the                        Neither party filed exceptions to the              licensee has been indicted’’ for such a
                                                    Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure                      CALJ’s decision. Thereafter, the record               felony, ‘‘the inquiry panel . . . shall
                                                    had affirmed the Emergency Order of                      was forwarded to me for Final Agency                  immediately issue an emergency order
                                                    Suspension which was issued to                           Action. Having considered the record in               suspending or restricting that licensee’s
                                                    Respondent on June 30, 2014. Id. While                   its entirety, I have decided to adopt the             Kentucky license.’’ Id. at 3 (quoting 201
                                                    the Show Cause Order acknowledged                        ALJ’s factual findings, legal conclusions             Ky. Admin. Regs. 9:240, § 3). The
                                                    that the suspension of Respondent’s                      and recommended sanction. I make the                  Inquiry Panel thus ordered that
                                                    license to practice osteopathic medicine                 following findings.                                   Respondent’s license to practice
                                                    had been subsequently vacated, it                                                                              osteopathy be suspended. Id. at 4.
                                                                                                             Findings
                                                    further alleged that to the extent the                                                                            Thereafter, Respondent sought
                                                    Emergency Order had suspended                               Respondent is the holder of DEA                    judicial review of the Emergency Order
                                                    Respondent’s authority to dispense                       Certificate of Registration BC8483430,                of Suspension in state court. Mot. for
                                                    controlled substances, this prohibition                  pursuant to which he is authorized to                 Summ. Disp., at Attachment 4, at 9. He
                                                    remains in effect. Id. at 1–2. The Show                  dispense controlled substances in                     also requested an administrative hearing
                                                    Cause Order thus alleged that                            schedules II through V as a practitioner              to challenge the Emergency Suspension.
                                                    Respondent is currently without                          at the registered address of Mountain                 Id. at 1.
                                                    authority to dispense controlled                         After Hours Clinic, 1908 North Main                      On August 11, 2014, the state court
                                                    substances in Kentucky, and therefore,                   Street, Hazard, KY 41701. Mot. for                    issued a temporary injunction which
                                                    his registration is subject to revocation.               Summ. Disp., at Attachment 1. While                   enjoined the Board from enforcing the
                                                    Id. at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 802(21), 823(f),              this registration was due to expire on                suspension. Id. at 9. The state court,
                                                    and 824(a)(3)).                                          August 31, 2015, on August 25, 2015,                  however, ‘‘kept in place the prohibition
                                                       On November 23, 2015, the Show                        Respondent submitted a renewal                        against [Respondent’s] prescribing,
                                                    Cause Order, which also notified                         application. Id. Thus, Respondent’s                   dispensing, or otherwise utilizing a
                                                    Respondent of his right to request a                     registration remains active pending the               controlled substance . . . pending the
                                                    hearing on the allegations, was served                   issuance of this Decision and Order. 5                issuance of’’ the Board’s Order. Id.
                                                    on Respondent by certified mail, return                  U.S.C. 558(c).                                           On August 15, 2014, a Hearing Officer
                                                    receipt requested. On December 16,                          Respondent is also the holder of a                 conducted a hearing at which
                                                    2015, Respondent, through his counsel,                   license to practice osteopathy issued by              Respondent was allowed to challenge
                                                    requested a hearing; the matter was                      the Kentucky Board of Medical                         the Emergency Suspension. Id. at 1.
                                                    placed on the docket of the Office of                    Licensure. Mot. for Summ. Disp.,                      Following the hearing, the Hearing
                                                    Administrative Law Judges and assigned                   Attachment 3, at 1. However, ‘‘[o]n or                Officer found that ‘‘there is probable
                                                    to Chief Administrative Law Judge                        about June 5, 2014,’’ Respondent ‘‘was                cause to believe [Respondent] engaged
                                                    (CALJ) John J. Mulrooney, II. The next                   indicted on two (2) counts of knowingly               in misconduct in violation of the
                                                    day, the CALJ ordered the Government                     and intentionally conspiring to                       Board’s statutes and that his practice of
                                                    to file evidence supporting the                          distribute and unlawfully dispense                    medicine constitutes a danger to the
                                                    allegation and a motion for summary                      Schedule II and III controlled                        health, welfare, and safety of his
                                                    disposition by December 31, 2015; in                     substances,’’ in violation of 21 U.S.C.               patients or the general practice.’’ Id. at
                                                    the event the Government filed a                         841(a)(1) and 846. Id. Respondent was                 2. However, consistent with the
                                                    motion, the CALJ directed Respondent                     also ‘‘indicted on one (1) count of                   injunction, the Hearing Officer modified
                                                    to file its reply by January 15, 2016.                   having knowingly open[ed], lease[d],                  the suspension to allow Respondent to
                                                       On December 21, 2015, the                             rent[ed], use[d] and maintain[ed] a place             ‘‘continue to practice osteopathy,’’
                                                    Government filed its Motion for                          (to wit [a pain management clinic]] . . .             while prohibiting him ‘‘from
                                                    Summary Disposition. As support for its                  for the purpose of distributing and                   prescribing, dispensing, or otherwise
                                                    motion, the Government attached a copy                   unlawfully dispensing controlled                      utilizing a controlled substance in
                                                    of the Board’s June 30, 2014 Emergency                   substances . . . in violation of 21 U.S.C.            Kentucky.’’ Id.
                                                    Order of Suspension and the Board’s                      856(a)(1).’’ Id. at 2.                                   According to the online records of the
                                                    August 22, 2014 Findings Of Fact,                           Based on the above, the Board’s                    Kentucky Board, the prohibition on
                                                    Conclusions Of Law, And Final Order.                     Inquiry Panel found, inter alia, that                 Respondent’s authority to dispense
                                                    Thereafter, Respondent filed a                           probable cause existed to believe that                controlled substances remains in effect
                                                    ‘‘Response [t]o Government’s Motion for                  Respondent had ‘‘[e]ngaged in                         as of this date. I therefore find that
                                                    Summary Judgment.’’                                      dishonorable, unethical, or                           Respondent is without authority to
                                                       On January 19, 2016, the CALJ                         unprofessional conduct of a character                 dispense controlled substances in
                                                    granted the Government’s motion,                         likely to deceive, defraud, or harm the               Kentucky, the State in which he holds
                                                    finding that there was no dispute as to                  public or any member thereof,’’ and that              his DEA registration.
                                                    the material fact that Respondent is                     he ‘‘[v]iolated or attempted to violate,’’
                                                    without authority to handle controlled                   abetted, or conspired to violate ‘‘any                Discussion
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES




                                                    substances in Kentucky, and that                         medical practice act, including . . . any               Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), ‘‘[a]
                                                    therefore, Respondent ‘‘is not entitled to               other valid regulation of the board.’’ Id.            registration . . . to . . . dispense a
                                                    maintain his DEA registration.’’ Order                   (citing Ky. Rev. Stat. § 311.595(9) &                 controlled substance . . . may be
                                                    Granting Government’s Motion for                         (12)). The Inquiry Panel further noted                suspended or revoked by the Attorney
                                                    Summary Disposition and                                  that under the Board’s regulations, ‘‘[i]f            General upon a finding that the
                                                    Recommended Ruling, Findings of Fact,                    a licensee is indicted in any state for a             registrant . . . has had his State license
                                                    Conclusions of Law, and Decision of the                  crime classified as a felony in that state            or registration suspended, revoked, or
                                                    Administrative Law Judge, at 5–6. The                    and the conduct charged relates to a                  denied by competent State authority


                                               VerDate Sep<11>2014   17:15 Jul 20, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00074   Fmt 4703   Sfmt 4703   E:\FR\FM\21JYN1.SGM   21JYN1


                                                    47418                          Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 140 / Thursday, July 21, 2016 / Notices

                                                    and is no longer authorized by State law                 regulatory provisions allowing an                     DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
                                                    to engage in the . . . dispensing of                     indictment alone to serve as substantial
                                                    controlled substances.’’ This Agency has                 evidence of a violation of law.’’ Id. at 7.           Service Contract Inventory; Notice of
                                                    further held that notwithstanding that                                                                         Availability
                                                                                                                However, ‘‘‘DEA has repeatedly held
                                                    this provision grants the Agency
                                                                                                             that a registrant cannot collaterally                 SUMMARY:    In accordance with Section
                                                    authority to suspend or revoke a
                                                                                                             attack the results of a state criminal or             743 of Division C of the FY 2010
                                                    registration, other provisions of the
                                                                                                             administrative proceeding in a                        Consolidated Appropriations Act,
                                                    Controlled Substances Act ‘‘make plain
                                                                                                             proceeding brought under section 304                  Public Law 111–117, the Department of
                                                    that a practitioner can neither obtain nor
                                                                                                             [21 U.S.C. 824] of the CSA.’’’ Calvin                 Justice is publishing this notice to
                                                    maintain a DEA registration unless the
                                                                                                             Ramsey, 76 FR 20034, 20036 (2011)                     advise the public of the availability of
                                                    practitioner currently has authority
                                                                                                             (quoting Hicham K. Riba, 73 FR 75773,                 its FY 2015 Service Contracts Inventory
                                                    under state law to handle controlled
                                                                                                             75774 (2008) (other citations omitted));              and Inventory Supplement. The
                                                    substances.’’ James L. Hooper, 76 FR
                                                                                                             see also Shahid Musud Siddiqui, 61 FR                 inventory includes service contract
                                                    71371, 71372 (2011), pet. for rev.
                                                                                                             14818 (1996); Robert A. Leslie, 60 FR                 actions over $25,000 that were awarded
                                                    denied, Hooper v. Holder, 481 F. App’x
                                                    826 (4th Cir. 2012).                                     14004 (1995). DEA is not vested with                  in Fiscal Year (FY) 2015. The inventory
                                                       These provisions include section                                                                            supplement includes information
                                                                                                             authority to adjudicate either the
                                                    102(21), which defines the term                                                                                collected from contractors on the
                                                                                                             constitutionality of the Board’s
                                                    ‘‘practitioner’’ to ‘‘mean[] a                                                                                 amount invoiced and direct labor hours
                                                                                                             Suspension Order, or whether the                      expended for covered service contracts.
                                                    physician . . . licensed, registered, or                 Board’s Order is arbitrary and
                                                    otherwise permitted, by . . . the                                                                              The Department of Justice analyzes this
                                                                                                             capricious. Respondent must therefore                 data for the purpose of determining
                                                    jurisdiction in which he practices . . . to              seek relief from the State Board’s Order
                                                    distribute, dispense, [or] administer . . .                                                                    whether its contract labor is being used
                                                                                                             in those administrative and judicial                  in an effective and appropriate manner
                                                    a controlled substance in the course of
                                                                                                             forums provided by the State.                         and if the mix of federal employees and
                                                    professional practice,’’ 21 U.S.C.
                                                    802(21), as well as section 303(f), which                   In a revocation proceeding brought                 contractors in the agency is effectively
                                                    directs that ‘‘[t]he Attorney General                    under section 824(a)(3), the only issue is            balanced. The inventory and
                                                    shall register practitioners . . . to                    whether a respondent holds current                    supplement do not include contractor
                                                    dispense . . . controlled substances . . .               authority to dispense controlled                      proprietary or sensitive information.
                                                    if the applicant is authorized to                        substances. Respondent’s various                         The FY 2015 Service Contract
                                                    dispense . . . controlled substances                     contentions as to the validity of the                 Inventory and Inventory Supplement is
                                                    under the laws of the State in which he                  Board’s order are therefore not material              provided at the following link: https://
                                                    practices.’’ Id. § 823(f). Based on these                to this Agency’s resolution of whether                www.justice.gov/jmd/service-contract-
                                                    provisions, the Agency has long held                                                                           inventory.
                                                                                                             he is entitled to maintain his DEA
                                                    that revocation is warranted even where                  registration. Because it is undisputed                FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara
                                                    a state board has summarily suspended                    that Respondent does not hold authority               M. Jamison, Procurement Policy Review
                                                    a practitioner’s controlled substances                   under the laws of Kentucky to dispense                Group, Justice Management Division,
                                                    authority and the state’s order remains                  controlled substances, he no longer                   U.S. Department of Justice, Washington,
                                                    subject to challenge in either                                                                                 DC 20530; Phone: 202–616–3754; Email:
                                                                                                             meets the definition of a practitioner
                                                    administrative or judicial proceedings.                                                                        Tara.Jamison@usdoj.gov.
                                                                                                             under the CSA and thus, he is not
                                                    See Gary Alfred Shearer, 78 FR 19009                                                                             Dated: July, 19, 2016.
                                                    (2013); Carmencita E. Gallora, 60 FR                     entitled to maintain his registration.
                                                                                                             See, e.g., Hooper, 76 FR at 71372.                    Jerri Murray,
                                                    47967 (1995).
                                                       Respondent nonetheless maintains                      Accordingly, I will order that                        Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S.
                                                                                                             Respondent’s registration be revoked                  Department of Justice.
                                                    that the proposed revocation of his
                                                    registration would violate his right to                  and that any pending application to                   [FR Doc. 2016–17248 Filed 7–20–16; 8:45 am]
                                                    due process because the Hearing Officer                  renew or modify this registration be                  BILLING CODE 4410–DH–P
                                                    applied the wrong standard of proof                      denied.
                                                    when he upheld the Emergency
                                                                                                             Order                                                 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
                                                    Suspension Order. Response to Govt’s
                                                    Mot. for Summ. Judgment, at 4–8.                            Pursuant to the authority vested in me
                                                    According to Respondent, this is so                                                                            Office of the Secretary
                                                                                                             by 21 U.S.C. 824(a) and 823(f), as well
                                                    because in holding that the Suspension                   as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I order that DEA
                                                    Order was justified by Respondent’s                                                                            Privacy Act of 1974; Publication in Full
                                                                                                             Certificate of Registration BC8483430                 of All Notices of Systems of Records,
                                                    indictment, the Hearing Officer applied
                                                                                                             issued to James Dustin Chaney, D.O., be,              Including Several New Systems,
                                                    a probable cause standard rather than
                                                                                                             and it hereby is, revoked. I further order            Substantive Amendments to Existing
                                                    the substantial evidence standard as
                                                    required by Kentucky law, and thus, the                  that any application of James Dustin                  Systems, Decommissioning of
                                                    Hearing Officer’s decision is arbitrary                  Chaney, D.O., to renew or modify this                 Obsolete Legacy Systems, and
                                                    and capricious. Id. at 5. Respondent                     registration, be, and it hereby is, denied.           Publication of Proposed Routines
                                                    argues that he ‘‘established with                        This Order is effective August 22, 2016.              Uses
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES




                                                    overwhelming and uncontested                               Dated: July 11, 2016.                               AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Labor.
                                                    evidence that his practice of medicine is                Chuck Rosenberg,                                      ACTION: Notice: Response to Comments
                                                    NOT a danger to the health, welfare, and                                                                       on the Department’s April 29, 2016
                                                                                                             Acting Administrator.
                                                    safety of his patients or the general                                                                          System of Records Notice.
                                                                                                             [FR Doc. 2016–17250 Filed 7–20–16; 8:45 am]
                                                    public.’’ Id. And he further argues that
                                                    ‘‘the Hearing Officer improperly placed                  BILLING CODE 4410–09–P                                SUMMARY:  This notice announces a
                                                    the risk of non-persuasion on [him] and                                                                        response to public comments on the
                                                    applied the [Board’s] unconstitutional                                                                         Department’s April 29, 2016 System of


                                               VerDate Sep<11>2014   17:15 Jul 20, 2016   Jkt 238001   PO 00000   Frm 00075   Fmt 4703   Sfmt 4703   E:\FR\FM\21JYN1.SGM   21JYN1



Document Created: 2018-02-08 07:59:21
Document Modified: 2018-02-08 07:59:21
CategoryRegulatory Information
CollectionFederal Register
sudoc ClassAE 2.7:
GS 4.107:
AE 2.106:
PublisherOffice of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
SectionNotices
FR Citation81 FR 47416 

2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR