[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 149 (Thursday, August 4, 1994)] [Unknown Section] [Page 0] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 94-19056] [[Page Unknown]] [Federal Register: August 4, 1994] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [Docket No. 93-4] Timothy H. Reese, M.D. Denial of Application On September 29, 1992, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an Order to Show Cause to Timothy H. Reese, M.D. (Respondent), of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, proposing to deny his application for registration as a practitioner. The Order to Show Cause alleged that Respondent's registration would be inconsistent with the public interest as that term is used in 21 U.S.C. 823(f). Respondent, through counsel, requested a hearing on the issues raised by the Order to Show Cause, and the matter was placed on the docket of Administrative Law Judge Mary Ellen Bittner. Following prehearing procedures, a hearing was held in Arlington, Virginia, on May 18, 1993. On March 8, 1994, in her findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended ruling, the administrative law judge recommended that Respondent's application for DEA registration be denied. No exceptions were filed by either party. On April 8, 1994, the administrative law judge transmitted the record to the Administrator. The Deputy Administrator has carefully considered the entire record in this matter and, pursuant to 21 CFR 1316.67, hereby issues his final order in this matter based upon findings of fact and conclusions of law as hereinafter set forth. The administrative law judge found that the Respondent is an emergency room physician who completed a three-year residency in family practice in 1977, and then became affiliated with medical groups that provided emergency room coverage for various hospitals. Respondent also maintained a small, private practice until April 1989. In 1984, an investigator for the Ohio State Medical Board (Board) obtained from a pharmacy various prescriptions for controlled substances written by Respondent. Most of the prescriptions bore the address of Respondent's residence, and were written for members of Respondent's family. The investigator interviewed some of Respondent's family members that were purportedly issued prescriptions by the Respondent, and they denied ever receiving prescriptions for him. Thereafter, the Board subpoenaed Respondent's patient records, however, Respondent indicated that they had been destroyed. Respondent was then requested to appear before the Board to explain why he wrote the prescriptions at issue. In his deposition before the Board, Respondent states that he did not know what controlled substances were, what schedules certain controlled substances were in, and that he wrote these prescriptions mainly for weight loss. In 1986, the Board's investigation of Respondent concluded with no charges being filed. In 1989, a sergeant with the Columbus (Ohio) Police Department, Narcotics Bureau (Narcotics Bureau), was informed by local pharmacists of their suspicions regarding prescriptions issued by the Respondent. The prescriptions were for large quantities of controlled substances, typically Dilaudid. The pharmacists were unfamiliar with the patients bringing in the prescriptions, and the patients named on the prescriptions did not have local addresses. The pharmacists further informed the Narcotics Bureau sergeant that the physician's telephone number listed on some of the prescriptions was disconnected, and that other prescriptions bore telephone numbers either at emergency rooms in Pennsylvania, or a residence in Westerville, Ohio. A confidential informant later advised the Narcotics Bureau that Respondent wrote prescriptions to members of his family and friends, and they in turn returned the prescribed drugs to Respondent, who used them to treat his wife's heroin addiction. As a result of this information, the Narcotics Bureau seized a number of Dilaudid prescriptions issued by Respondent from local pharmacies. The investigation by the Narcotics Bureau also revealed that: One of the individuals that attempted to fill a controlled substance prescription was seen by the pharmacist driving a car registered to Respondent's address; several of the individuals did not reside at the address listed on their prescriptions; an individual stated that she used cocaine while in Respondent's home, sold cocaine to Respondent, and was offered cocaine by the Respondent to fill a prescription, which she refused; Respondent asked the same individual to fill a prescription for Dilaudid, and the individual later prepared syringes of Dilaudid and water that Respondent's wife injected; all of the telephone numbers for Respondent on the prescriptions corresponded to emergency rooms in Pennsylvania. Respondent testified at the hearing, that someone falsified his signature on the prescriptions found by the Narcotics Bureau. Respondent testified that after he and his wife separated in April 1989, and he moved from their Westerville, Ohio residence, he believed that his wife continued to live in the residence until her eviction for non-payment of rent. Respondent further testified that he left behind all of his belongings, including prescription pads printed with the address of his residence. In August 1989, a DEA diversion investigator observed the wife's eviction from Respondent's home. Among the items removed from the home and subsequently recovered by DEA, were drug paraphernalia items, including a white powder substance in a plastic container and pipes containing residue. The items later tested positive for sodium bicarbonate, oxycodone, and cocaine. The Narcotics Bureaus sergeant testified at the hearing that despite the information disclosed by the investigation, the Respondent was not criminally charged because he moved out of the State of Ohio. Following Respondent's relocation to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, on October 26, 1989, DEA informed him that he was under investigation for diverting Dilaudid. In response to this information, Respondent surrendered his DEA registration. On March 31, 1991, Respondent executed an application for DEA registration, and answered affirmatively, the question regarding whether he had ever surrendered a previous registration. DEA then initiated a pre-registration investigation of the Respondent. The investigation revealed that, in 1990, when Respondent began working for a physicians' group that provided medical services, he informed his employer that he was registered with DEA, and provided his surrendered registration number. DEA later obtained Respondent's application for employment at a health care facility in Mount Pleasant, Pennsylvania, where Respondent was associated as an emergency room physician. In response to a question on the application for employment regarding his registration status, Respondent again stated that he held a current DEA registration, and listed his surrendered registration number. DEA also discovered numerous prescriptions issued by Respondent in 1990 and 1991, in which he repeatedly used his surrendered DEA registration number. Respondent testified that his wife used heroin and cocaine, that she was taking methadone, and that she had access to his DEA number. Respondent also testified that he has never abused drugs, been charged with using drugs, or kept drug paraphernalia in his home. Respondent acknowledged however that he never informed his employers of the surrender of his DEA registration, because his lack of registration would preclude his employment. Respondent further acknowledged that he wrote prescriptions for controlled substances after the surrender of his DEA registration because his work required him to do so, and that he needed his DEA registration to continue his career as an emergency room physician. Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f), the Deputy Administrator may deny any application for such registration, if he determines that the continued registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. In determining the public interest, the following factors are considered: (1) The recommendation of the appropriate State licensing board or professional disciplinary authority. (2) The applicant's experience in dispensing controlled substances. (3) The applicant's conviction record under Federal or State laws relating to the distribution, or dispensing of controlled substances. (4) Compliance with applicable State, Federal, or local laws relating to controlled substances. (5) Such other conduct which may threaten the public health and safety. It is well established that these factors are to be considered in the disjunctive, i.e., the Deputy Administrator may properly rely on any one or a combination of the factors and give each factor the weight he deems appropriate. See Henry J. Schwarz, Jr., M.D., Docket No. 88- 42, 54 FR 16422 (1989). In considering whether grounds exist to deny Respondent's application for DEA registration, the administrative law judge found factors two, four and five relevant in light of evidence regarding Respondent's falsification of employment applications, representing that he held a DEA registration after he had surrendered the registration; and, Respondent's issuing of prescriptions for controlled substances using his surrendered DEA registration number. The administrative law judge found, that despite Respondent's explanations regarding his falsifying employment applications and writing prescriptions with a surrendered DEA registration number, Respondent showed no remorse, and appeared to consider his actions justified by exigent circumstances. The administrative law judge also found with respect to the prescriptions for Dilaudid, that Respondent's testimony was not responsive nor particularly credible. The administrative law judge further found that Respondent's admission that other persons, including his wife whom Respondent knew to be a drug abuser, had access to his prescription pads, showed that Respondent had little respect for the responsibilities of being a DEA registrant. Judge Bittner concluded that the preponderance of the credible evidence established that it is unlikely that Respondent would competently or reliably discharge the obligations inherent in a DEA registration, and further concluded that it would not be in the public interest to grant his application. Therefore, the administrative law judge recommended that Respondent's application for DEA registration be denied. The Deputy Administrator having considered the entire record adopts the administrative law judge's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended ruling in its entirety. Accordingly, the Deputy Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, pursuant to the authority vested in him by 21 U.S.C. 823 and 824 and 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104 (59 FR 23637), hereby orders that the application for registration, executed by Timothy H. Reese, M.D., be, and it hereby is, denied. This order is effective August 4, 1994. Dated: July 28, 1994. Stephen H. Greene, Deputy Administrator. [FR Doc. 94-19056 Filed 8-3-94; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-M