DEA Administrative Actions Against Doctors-2006
1. Sheran Arden Yates, M.D., Revocation of Registration, 71 Fed. Reg. 39130 (July 11, 2006)On October 21, 2004, DEA issue an Order to Show Cause to Respondent as to why his DEA registration should not be revoked on the grounds that he was not authorized to handle controlled substances in the State of Tennessee, the state in which he was registered by DEA. Respondent requested a hearing.
An undated, notarized letter from the Tennessee Department of Health explained that Respondent’s medical license had been summarily suspended by the State of Tennessee on May 21, 2004, and that Respondent failed to renew his medical license before July 31, 2004, which rendered his license inactive and prevented Respondent from practicing medicine in the State of Tennessee. Further, additional investigation by DEA revealed that the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners permanently revoked Respondent’s medical license on October 12, 2005. DEA does not have statutory authority under the Controlled Substances Act to maintain a registration if an applicant or registrant is without state authorization to handle controlled substances in the state in which he or she conducts business. Consequently, DEA revoked his registration based on his lack of state authorization to handle controlled substances. 21 U.S.C. §§ 802(21), 823(f), and 824(a)(3).
2. William G. Hamilton, Jr., M.D., Revocation of Registration, 71 Fed. Reg. 39129 (July 11, 2006)
On July 23, 2004, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause to Respondent as to why his DEA registration should not be revoked on the grounds that, on March 3, 2004, the Medical Board of California suspended his state medical license. Respondent did not respond to the Order to Show Cause or request a hearing. DEA does not have statutory authority under the Controlled Substances Act to maintain a registration if an applicant or registrant is without state authorization to handle controlled substances in the state in which he or she conducts business. Consequently, DEA revoked his registration based on his lack of state authorization to handle controlled substances. 21 U.S.C. §§ 802(21), 823(f), and 824(a)(3).
3. John H. Kennedy, M.D., Denial of Application for Registration, 71 Fed. Reg. 35705 (June 21, 2006)An investigation by State of Tennessee law enforcement authorities revealed that Respondent unlawfully distributed controlled substances and unlawfully possessed marijuana. An individual arrested for selling Valium (Diazepam) admitted to Tennessee authorities that Respondent was her source for the drugs. She began cooperating, and agreed to wear a wire during meetings and telephone conversations with Respondent. Those recordings corroborated her claim that Respondent prescribed medication for her knowing that she would sell it and return some of the profits to him. Search warrants executed at Respondent’s home and office by Tennessee law enforcement authorities and DEA found marijuana and drug paraphernalia, and also revealed that Respondent kept no record or inventories concerning receipt or distribution of controlled substances.Consequently, on June 19, 2000, Respondent pled guilty in Federal District Court in the Eastern District of Tennessee to one count of unlawful distribution of diazepam and one count of unlawful possession of marijuana. The Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners revoked his medical license on May 9, 2000, and, on June 15, 2000, Respondent voluntarily surrendered his DEA registration.
Subsequently, after the State of Tennessee restored his medical license, Respondent applied for a new DEA registration. DEA issued an Order to Show Cause to Respondent proposing to deny his application for registration, and Respondent requested a hearing. During the hearing, respondent admitted to having violated the law leading to his conviction. Also, although he denied recent use, he also admitted to abuse of marijuana, Quaaludes, and cocaine while a practicing physician. After a review of the entire record, DEA determined that Respondent’s registration would not be in the public interest, and denied his application.
4. Mark C. Evans, D.D.S., Revocation of Registration, 71 Fed. Reg. 35704 (June 21, 2006)
On June 24, 2004, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause to Respondent as to why his DEA registration should not be revoked on the grounds that, on December 18, 2002, the Dental Board of California revoked his dental license in that state. Respondent did not respond to the Order to Show Cause or request a hearing. DEA does not have statutory authority under the Controlled Substances Act to maintain a registration if an applicant or registrant is without state authorization to handle controlled substances in the state in which he or she conducts business. Consequently, DEA revoked his registration based on his lack of state authorization to handle controlled substances. 21 U.S.C. §§ 802(21), 823(f), and 824(a)(3).
5. Kevin Dean Brockbank, M.D., Revocation of Registration, 71 Fed. Reg. 30167 (May 25, 2006)On October 14, 2004, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause and Immediate Suspension to Respondent, which suspended his DEA registration and directed him to show cause as to why DEA should not revoke his registration. The Order alleged that Respondent had issued prescriptions to a large number of people without examinations, medical tests or evaluations, and without a legitimate medical purpose. Over a 13-month period, Respondent had issued prescriptions for an estimated 690,000 dosage units of controlled substances, which local pharmacies were either refusing to fill or drastically reducing in quantity due to their suspicious nature. In addition, Respondent had also issued controlled substance prescriptions for no valid medical reason to six undercover law enforcement officers posing as patients. At least one individual died from an overdose of controlled substances obtained from one of Respondent’s patients.On October 18, 2004, Respondent entered into a consent agreement with the Arizona Medical Board to surrender his medical license. In the Order, he admitted to prescribing controlled substances to two female patients without proper examinations and in violation of the standard of care. He also admitted to making sexual advances to two female patients after making "house calls" and injecting them with schedule II controlled substances.
Respondent did not respond to the Order to Show Cause and Immediate Suspension, nor did he request a hearing. DEA does not have statutory authority under the Controlled Substances Act to maintain a registration if an applicant or registrant is without state authorization to handle controlled substances in the state in which he or she conducts business. Consequently, despite the Respondent’s egregious prescribing activities and grossly inappropriate conduct with female patients, the revocation of his state medical license was dispositive of this matter, and it was unnecessary for DEA to resolve the public interest grounds for revocation. DEA revoked his registration based on his lack of state authorization to handle controlled substances. 21 U.S.C. §§ 802(21), 823(f), and 824(a)(3).
6. Sidney S. Loxley, M.D., Revocation of Registration, 71 Fed. Reg. 30172 (May 25, 2006)On January 25, 2005, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause and Immediate Suspension to Respondent, which suspended his DEA registration and directed him to show cause as to why DEA should not revoke his registration. The Order noted that Respondent had two prior disciplinary actions by the Virginia Board of Medicine: a sixteen-month suspension of his medical license in 1993 for a sexual relationship with a minor; a three-year probation in October 2003 for prescribing controlled substances to his wife, who was chemically dependent; and controlled substance recordkeeping violations reflecting gross incompetence. The Order also alleged that Respondent was writing prescriptions for large amounts of controlled substances to people without the physical examinations, testing or evaluations that are consistent with a legitimate doctor-patient relationship. Between October 2003 and May 2004, DEA undercover Special Agents and cooperating sources posing as patients obtained multiple prescriptions, and audits of pharmacies between August and December 2004 revealed that Respondent was continually prescribing large quantities of narcotic controlled substances without apparent legitimate medical reasons. Four patients died under Respondent’s care as a possible result of overprescribing. Respondent was indicted on 91 felony counts related to unlawful distribution and dispensing of controlled substances without a legitimate medical purpose.Respondent did not reply to the Order to Show Cause and did not request a hearing. While the Order to Show Cause was pending, however, in May 2005, Respondent entered into a consent agreement with the Virginia Medical Board in which he agreed to surrender his state medical license pending the outcome of his criminal trial.
DEA does not have statutory authority under the Controlled Substances Act to maintain a registration if an applicant or registrant is without state authorization to handle controlled substances in the state in which he or she conducts business. Consequently, despite the Respondent’s egregious prescribing activities, the revocation of his state medical license was dispositive of this matter, and it was unnecessary for DEA to resolve the public interest grounds for revocation. DEA revoked his registration based on his lack of state authorization to handle controlled substances. 21 U.S.C. §§ 802(21), 823(f), and 824(a)(3).
7. Worth S. Wilkinson, M.D., Revocation of Registration, 71 Fed. Reg. 30173 (May 25, 2006)
On March 1, 2005, DEA issued an Order to Show Cause to Respondent as to why his DEA registration should not be revoked on the grounds that he was not licensed to practice medicine in Louisiana, the state in which he was registered by DEA. Respondent did not reply to the Order to Show Cause or request a hearing. The evidence revealed that, on October 29, 2004, the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners revoked Respondent’s license to practice medicine in that state based on the Board’s conclusion that Respondent was in need of testing and evaluation for alcohol abuse and apparent physical and mental inability to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety to his patients. DEA does not have statutory authority under the Controlled Substances Act to maintain a registration if an applicant or registrant is without state authorization to handle controlled substances in the state in which he or she conducts business. Consequently, DEA revoked his registration based on his lack of state authorization to handle controlled substances. 21 U.S.C. §§ 802(21), 823(f), and 824(a)(3).
