30846 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No.

106 / Monday, June 4, 2007 / Notices

Nolte Drive, West Deptford, New Jersey Respondent’s registration based on my bestrxcare.com. Id. at 2. According to
08066, made application by letter to the preliminary finding that they had the Show Cause Order, Mr. Larson told
Drug Enforcement Administration ‘‘diverted and continue to divert investigators that persons seeking
(DEA) to be registered as a bulk massive amounts of controlled controlled substances completed an on-
manufacturer of the basic classes of substances in violation’’ of federal law line questionnaire and then faxed their
controlled substances listed in schedule ‘‘thereby creating an imminent danger to medical records to bestrxcare.com,
II: public health or safety.’’ Show Cause where they were scanned into a
Order at 5. The Show Cause Order database for review by either a
Drug Sched- further sought the revocation of each physician or a physician’s assistant
ule Respondent’s registration on the ground (PA). Id. Mr. Larson allegedly told
that its continued registration would be investigators that if the records were
Methadone (9250) .......................... II
Methadone Intermediate (9254) ..... II
‘‘inconsistent with the public interest.’’ ‘‘ok,’’ a physician or a PA would then
Id. at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 823(f) & consult with the customer by telephone.
The company plans to use the 824(a)(4)). Id. According to the Show Cause Order,
With respect to CRJ Pharmacy, the after the customer had paid the Web site
Methadone Intermediate to produce the
Show Cause Order alleged that it was and the phone consultation was
Methadone HCL for sale to its customers
the fourteenth largest retail purchaser of completed, a ‘‘prescription’’ was issued
who are final dosage manufacturers.
hydrocodone-combination products in which CRJ then downloaded from the
No comments or objections have been
the State of Florida, and that ‘‘[f]rom Internet and dispensed. Id.
received. DEA has considered the
January through November 2006, CRJ The Show Cause Order further alleged
factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and
purchased 1,416,320 dosage units of that a physician employed by Larson
determined that the registration of
brand name and generic hydrocodone had admitted to investigators that
Johnson Matthey Inc. to manufacture
combination products,’’ a schedule III Larson was using his DEA ‘‘license for
the listed basic class of controlled
controlled substance. Id. The Show pain pills.’’ Id. at 3. According to the
substance is consistent with the public
Cause Order further alleged that on Show Cause Order, the physician
interest at this time. DEA has
March 30, 2006, DEA investigators had further admitted that ‘‘he does not speak
investigated Johnson Matthey Inc. to inspected CRJ and determined that it with any of the Internet customers or
ensure that the company’s registration is filled controlled substance orders their primary care physicians,’’ and that
consistent with the public interest. The placed through a Web site, he ‘‘does not diagnose the Internet
investigation has included inspection yourpainmanagement.com; that the customers or provide after care services
and testing of the company’s physical orders were for persons throughout the for the Internet customers.’’ Id.
security systems, verification of the United States; and that the orders were With respect to YPM, the Show Cause
company’s compliance with state and authorized by only two physicians. Id. Order alleged that it was dispensing
local laws, and a review of the at 2. According to the allegations, one of controlled substances that were ordered
company’s background and history. the physicians was licensed to practice through another Web site,
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, only in Florida; the other was licensed yourpainmanagment.com, which was
and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, only in Minnesota. Id. also owned by Larson. Id. at 4. The
the above named company is granted The Show Cause Order further alleged Show Cause Order alleged that on
registration as a bulk manufacturer of that on January 22, 2007, DEA August 17, 2005, Larson stated to DEA
the basic class of controlled substance investigators executed an administrative investigators that a person could order
listed. search warrant at CRJ and obtained controlled substances for pain
Dated: May 29, 2007. records showing that between July 3, management through this Web site by
Joseph T. Rannazzisi, 2006, and January 22, 2007, CRJ had completing a form on which they
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of ‘‘filled approximately 19,223 controlled provided their name, address, billing
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement substance drug orders and shipped them information, general biographic details
Administration. to customers throughout the United and medical complaint. Id. Larson
[FR Doc. E7–10692 Filed 6–1–07; 8:45 am] States.’’ Id. The Show Cause Order also allegedly also told investigators that the
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
alleged that these prescriptions were customers would then fax their medical
authorized by physicians located in records to the Web site where they were
Texas, Wisconsin, Puerto Rico, New then reviewed by a PA; if the records
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE York, California, Kansas, and Florida, appeared ‘‘in order,’’ either a physician
for persons who did not reside in the or the PA would conduct a telephone
Drug Enforcement Administration same States as the physicians, that the consultation with the customer. Id. The
prescriptions were disproportionately Show Cause Order further alleged that
[Docket No. 07–19]
for ‘‘one or two types of highly addictive during this interview, one of Larson’s
CRJ Pharmacy, Inc. and YPM Total and abused controlled substances,’’ that employees told DEA investigators that
Care Pharmacy, Inc.; Revocation of ‘‘CRJ filled large quantities of the Web site does not order further
Registrations prescriptions per day, per physician,’’ testing of its customers and does not
and thus CRJ knew or should have contact the physicians named on the
This is a consolidated proceeding known that the prescriptions it customers’ medical records. Id.
involving two pharmacies under dispensed ‘‘were not issued ‘for a The Show Cause Order also alleged
common ownership. On February 2, legitimate medical purpose by an that from May 2006 through November
2007, I issued an Order to Show Cause individual practitioner acting in the 2006, YPM had purchased 841,800 units
and Immediate Suspension of DEA usual course of his professional of hydrocodone-combination products.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES

Certificates of Registration, BC9458539, practice.’ ’’ Id. at 4 (quoting 21 CFR Id. Relatedly, the Show Cause Order
issued to CRJ Pharmacy, Inc., and 1306.04(a)). alleged that YPM records showed that it
BY9713276, issued to YPM Total Care The Show Cause Order alleged that had dispensed 17,336 controlled
Pharmacy, both of Lakeland, Florida. I CRJ’s owner, Mr. Chris Larson, had substance orders to internet customers
immediately suspended each admitted to investigators that he owned throughout the United States and that

VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:34 Jun 01, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04JNN1.SGM 04JNN1
 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 106 / Monday, June 4, 2007 / Notices 30847

98 percent of the orders were authorized Government’s submission did not, Id. Respondents also contended that
by three physicians. Id. The Show Cause however, include a similar letter from because of the collateral consequences
Order further alleged that two of these YPM. that attach with the issuance of an
physicians were licensed to practice Respondent did not oppose this immediate suspension, ‘‘to the extent
medicine in Florida; moreover, between motion. Response to Gov. Motion for the Deputy Administrator seeks to
June 1, 2006, and January 19, 2007, the Summ. Disp. at 1. However, on March uphold the suspension, CRJ and YPM
third physician, who was licensed in 16, 2007, the Government had also filed have a right to a hearing.’’ Id.
Minnesota, had authorized 15,050 a motion to supplement the motion for Respondents thus maintained that
orders. Id. The Show Cause Order thus summary disposition. The Government granting the Government’s
alleged that YPM ‘‘knew or should have based its motion on my decision in supplemental motion would ‘‘violate
known that the ‘prescriptions’ [it] William R. Lockridge, M.D., 71 FR [their] hearing rights’’ because the
dispensed were not issued ‘for a 77,791 (2006). In Lockridge, I reviewed Government’s affidavits are
legitimate medical purpose by an the propriety of an immediate ‘‘conclusory’’ and cannot support the
individual practitioner acting in the suspension in a case in which the ‘‘factual findings’’ sought by the
usual course of his professional Respondent’s registration had expired, Government. Id. at 4–5 (citing 21 CFR
practice’’’ and violated federal law. Id. in part, because of the collateral 1316.41). Finally, Respondent
at 4 (quoting 21 CFR 1306.04(a)). consequences which attached with the contended that Lockridge ‘‘does not, and
On February 5, 2007, both CRJ and issuance of the suspension. The cannot, hold that a decision on the
YPM were served with the Order to Government thus moved to submit merits may issue after a summary
Show Cause and Immediate Suspension several affidavits of DEA investigators to disposition.’’ Id. at 5. Respondents did
of Registrations. On February 22, 2007, support ‘‘the basis for the immediate not, however, submit any affidavits of
both Respondents, who were suspensions.’’ Gov. Mot. to Supp. at 1. their own.
represented by the same counsel, Thereafter, on March 19, 2007, the Neither party filed exceptions to the
requested a hearing on the allegations. ALJ afforded Respondents the ALJ’s decision. Thereafter, the ALJ
The matters were assigned to opportunity to respond to the forwarded the record to me for final
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Mary Government’s motion by April 2, 2007. agency action. Having considered the
Ellen Bittner. Subsequently, on March 22, 2007, the record as a whole, I hereby issue this
On March 12, 2007, the Government ALJ granted the Government’s motion final order. I adopt the ALJ’s
moved for summary disposition. The for summary disposition to the extent it recommendation that each Respondent’s
basis for the Government’s motion was sought the revocation of Respondents’ registration be revoked on the ground
that Respondents had closed their DEA registrations on the ground that that it no longer has authority to handle
businesses on February 12, 2007, and CRJ and YPM were without authority controlled substances in the State of
had ‘‘transferred all prescription under Florida law to handle controlled Florida and thus is not entitled to hold
records, inventory, and required DEA substances and therefore were not a DEA registration in that State. I further
records to other DEA registrants.’’ Gov. entitled to maintain their DEA conclude that my decision in Lockridge
Mot. for Summ. Disp. at 1. The registrations. ALJ Dec. at 3. The ALJ is not controlling and that the issue of
Government’s motion further asserted thus recommended that Respondents’ the validity of the immediate
that on February 27, 2007, Respondent registrations be revoked. Id. suspensions is now moot because each
CRJ had surrendered its Florida Board of The ALJ also granted the Respondent has surrendered its Florida
Pharmacy License to the Florida Board Government’s motion to supplement its pharmacy license and closed its
of Pharmacy. Id. The Government original motion for summary disposition business. Moreover, neither the
further asserted that Respondent YPM and submit into the record the two Government nor Respondents have
had ‘‘signified its intent to surrender its affidavits. The ALJ, however, also pointed to any non-speculative
Florida Board of Pharmacy License in afforded Respondents the opportunity to collateral consequence which a ruling
its letter to DEA dated February 22, submit additional documents including on the merits of the immediate
2007.’’ Id. at 2. The Government thus affidavits.1 suspension order would resolve. I make
asserted that both ‘‘Respondents are On April 2, 2007, Respondents filed the following findings.
currently without authority under their response which vigorously
Florida law to dispense controlled Findings
opposed the Government’s motion.
substances’’ and therefore are not Respondents contended that there is On April 21, 2006, Respondent YPM
entitled to maintain their DEA ‘‘no dispute’’ that they ‘‘can no longer Total Care Pharmacy, Inc., was issued
registrations. Id. hold DEA registrations.’’ Response at 3. DEA Certificate of Registration,
In support of its motion, the Respondents maintained, however, that BY9713276, as a retail pharmacy, with
Government attached copies of letters an expiration date of May 31, 2009. On
the Government’s reliance on Lockridge
from both YPM (dated Feb. 27, 2007) some date not specified in the record,
was misplaced because in there, a full
and CRJ (dated Feb. 28, 2007) to the Respondent CRJ Pharmacy, Inc., was
hearing had been held and ‘‘[m]ootness
DEA Miami Office; each letter advised issued DEA Certificate of Registration,
was implicated only when the
that the pharmacy had closed, that it BC9458539, with an expiration date of
respondent’s registration expired after
was in the process of surrendering its August 31, 2008.
the hearing.’’ Id. at 4.
state license, and sought permission to Respondents further argued that
On February 7, 2007, DEA
act as a one-time wholesaler to sell the ‘‘[t]he Government itself has claimed
investigators served both YPM Total
controlled substances (which apparently that this case is moot and therefore no
Care Pharmacy, Inc., and CRJ Pharmacy,
were still in their possession) to another hearing should be held,’’ and that this
Inc., with the above described Order to
pharmacy. See Appendices I & II to Gov. Show Cause and Immediate Suspension
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES

precludes a ‘‘ruling on the immediate

Mot. The Government also attached a suspension as the Government seeks.’’
of Registration. Shortly thereafter, on
copy of the letter from CRJ to the Florida February 12, 2007, YPM closed its
Board of Pharmacy, by which it 1 The ALJ did not, however, rule on the pharmacy. Moreover, on February 26,
surrendered its state license. See Government’s alternative basis for summary 2007, YPM transferred its prescription
Appendix III to Gov. Mot. The disposition. records to another DEA registrant, and

VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:34 Jun 01, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04JNN1.SGM 04JNN1
 30848 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 106 / Monday, June 4, 2007 / Notices

on February 28, 2007, YPM transferred revocation are appropriate.’’ Response Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000) (other
its records and inventory of controlled to Gov. Mot. to Supplement at 3. quotations and citations omitted)).3
substances (with the Agency’s approval) Respondents do, however, object to the Here, by contrast, the record
to that registrant. YPM subsequently Government’s submission of the two establishes that each Respondent has
surrendered its Florida Pharmacy affidavits and my ruling on the merits not only surrendered its State license,
License. I take official notice of the of the immediate suspension.
but has also gone out of business.
online records of the Florida Respondents assert that Lockridge is
Moreover, in contrast to the registrant in
Department of Health which confirm distinguishable because there, a full
that YPM Total Care Pharmacy has evidentiary hearing had been held, and Lockridge, each Respondent has not
closed.2 here, no such hearing has been held. only engaged in affirmative acts
According to the record, on February Respondents further argue that the showing that it was ending its business
12, 2007, CRJ Pharmacy, Inc., also validity of the immediate suspensions is activities, it has also expressly
closed its pharmacy. On February 26, now a moot issue although they communicated these facts to the
2007, CJR transferred its prescription contend—inconsistently—that they are Agency. Relatedly, neither Respondent
records to another DEA registrant, and entitled to a hearing ‘‘before bearing the opposes the revocation of its registration
on February 28, 2007, transferred its adverse collateral consequences’’ that nor seeks to litigate the validity of the
records and inventory of controlled would arise were I to issue a ruling suspension orders.
substances to that registrant. CJR upholding the immediate suspension Finally, neither Respondent has
subsequently surrendered its Florida orders. asserted that it plans to re-enter the
Pharmacy License. I also take official I conclude that Lockridge is not business of pharmacy at some future
notice of the online records of the controlling and that the issue of the date. The speculative possibility that
Florida Department of Health which validity of the immediate suspensions either Respondent will seek a new
confirm that CRJ Pharmacy has closed. in this case is now moot. It is registration at some point in the future
fundamental that the issuance of an is not enough to conclude that sufficient
Discussion
immediate suspension imposes a
Under the Controlled Substances Act, collateral consequences exist to render
deprivation of a property interest which
a practitioner must be currently the issue of the suspension orders’
gives rise to the protections of the Due
authorized to handle controlled Process Clause. See, e.g., FDIC v. validity a live dispute. See, e.g., City
substances in ‘‘the jurisdiction in which Mallen, 486 U.S. 230, 240 (1988). News, 531 U.S. at 285; Spencer v.
[it] practices’’ in order to maintain its Subsequent events may nonetheless Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 16 (1998). Indeed,
DEA registration. See 21 U.S.C. 802(21) make clear that there is no longer a live were either Respondent to apply for a
(‘‘[t]he term ‘practitioner’ means a * * * controversy between the parties even new registration in the future, it would
pharmacy * * * licensed, registered, or when the Government has yet to nonetheless be required to disclose on
otherwise permitted, by * * * the provide the constitutionally required its application the revocation being
jurisdiction in which [it] practices process. Cf. City News and Novelty, Inc., ordered below. Under these
* * * to * * * dispense a controlled v. City of Waukesha, 531 U.S. 278 circumstances, the suspension orders
substance in the course of professional (2001). impose on Respondents no additional
practice’’). See also id. section 823(f) In Lockridge, I held that the consequence beyond what they will be
(‘‘The Attorney General shall register proceeding was not moot required to disclose because of the
practitioners * * * if the applicant is notwithstanding that the practitioner revocations of their registrations.4
authorized to dispense * * * controlled had allowed his registration to expire Accordingly, the issue is now moot.
substances under the laws of the State following the hearing and there was no
in which [it] practices.’’). As numerous existing registration to act upon. In so Order
agency orders have held, ‘‘a registrant holding, I relied on several factors. Pursuant to the authority vested in me
may not hold a DEA registration if it is These included the collateral by 21 U.S.C. 824, as well as 28 CFR
without authority under the laws of the consequences that attached with the
state in which it does business.’’ Bourne 0.100(b) & 0.104, I hereby order that
issuance of the immediate suspension,
Pharmacy, Inc., 72 FR 18273, 18274 DEA Certificate of Registration,
in particular the harm to the
(2007) (quoting Oakland Medical BC9458539, issued to CRJ Pharmacy,
practitioner’s reputation, and the
Pharmacy, 71 FR 50100, 50102 (2006)). additional disability imposed by the Inc., and DEA Certificate of Registration,
Accord Rx Network of South Florida, Agency’s requirement to report the BY9713276, issued to YPM Total Care
LLC, 69 FR 62,093 (2004); Wingfield suspension on any subsequent Pharmacy, Inc., be, and they hereby are,
Drugs, Inc., 52 FR 27,070 (1987). application for a DEA registration. revoked. I further order that pending
Each Respondent having surrendered I also noted that the practitioner had applications for renewal or modification
its State license, neither now disputes not moved to dismiss the proceeding on of either registration be, and they hereby
‘‘that summary disposition and mootness grounds and that he had are, denied. This order is effective July
submitted no evidence showing that he 5, 2007.
2 Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA),
‘‘intend[ed] to permanently cease the
an agency ‘‘may take official notice of facts at any
stage in a proceeding-even in the final decision.’’
practice of medicine.’’ 71 FR at 77797. 3 I also noted the extensive resources committed

U.S. Dept. of Justice, Attorney General’s Manual on I thus concluded that Respondent might by both parties in litigating the case and the
the Administrative Procedure Act 80 (1947) (Wm. apply for a new registration and seek to potential prejudice to the public interest were I to
W. Gaunt & Sons, Inc., Reprint 1979). In accordance engage in the same practices which had dismiss the proceeding without making findings.
with the APA and DEA’s regulations, Respondent
prompted the immediate suspension. 4 Finally, in this proceeding, the Government
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES

is ‘‘entitled on timely request, to an opportunity to

Thus, it was not ‘‘ ‘absolutely clear that apparently did not place under seal the controlled
show to the contrary.’’ 5 U.S.C. 556(e); see also 21
CFR 1316.59(e). Respondent can dispute these facts [the practitioner’s] allegedly wrongful substances possessed by either Respondent at the
by filing a properly supported motion for time of the suspensions. See 21 U.S.C. 824(f).
behavior could not reasonably be Accordingly, title to the controlled substances is not
reconsideration within fifteen days of service of this
order, which shall begin on the date this order is
expected to recur.’ ’’ Id. (quoting Friends a collateral issue which would be resolved in this
mailed. of the Earth, Inc., v. Laidlaw Env. Servs., proceeding.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:34 Jun 01, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04JNN1.SGM 04JNN1
 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 106 / Monday, June 4, 2007 / Notices 30849

Dated: May 21, 2007. The Show Cause Order also alleged Findings of Fact
Michele M. Leonhart, that on May 6, 2004, DEA investigators Respondent is a corporation, which is
Deputy Administrator. conducted an inspection of Respondent owned and operated by Mr. Obi
[FR Doc. E7–10624 Filed 6–1–07; 8:45 am] during which they obtained its Enemchukwu, a pharmacist, and does
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P prescription records for the period business as Oviedo Discount Pharmacy
January 1 through May 6, 2004. Id. at 7. in Oviedo, Florida. ALJ at 2; ALJ Ex. at
The Show Cause Order alleged that 3. Respondent held DEA Certificate of
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE between January and May 5, 2004, Registration, BT2863668, which
Respondent had filled 2,196 internet authorized it to dispense controlled
Drug Enforcement Administration prescriptions for phentermine issued by substances in Schedules II through V,
[Docket No. 06–4] Dr. Carino to persons located from September 1991 until the
throughout the United States. Id. at 7– expiration of its registration on
Trinity Health Care Corp., D/B/A/ 8. November 30, 2006. ALJ Ex. 3, at 1.
Oviedo Discount Pharmacy; Finally, the Show Cause Order alleged Respondent last renewed its registration
Affirmance of Immediate Suspension that on April 15, 2005, a DEA Special on October 24, 2003. Id. I take official
On August 19, 2005, I, the Deputy Agent (S/A) had accessed the notice of the fact that Respondent did
Administrator of the Drug Enforcement iPharmacy.MD Web site, completed a not submit a renewal application prior
Administration, issued an Order to questionnaire, and ordered 90 tablets of to the expiration of its registration.1
Show Cause and Immediate Suspension phentermine. Id. at 9. The Show Cause Accordingly, I find that Respondent is
of Registration to Trinity Healthcare Order further alleged that on April 21, no longer registered with the Agency.
Corporation, d/b/a/ Oviedo Discount 2005, the S/A received a bottle of See 5 U.S.C. 558(c).
Pharmacy (Respondent) of Oviedo, phentermine which had been filled by DEA’s 2001 Policy Statement on
Florida. The Order immediately Respondent. Internet Prescribing and Dispensing
suspended Respondent’s Certificate of Respondent, through its counsel, In April 2001, several years before the
Registration, BT2863668, as a retail requested a hearing. The matter was
pharmacy, based on my preliminary events at issue here, DEA published in
assigned to Administrative Law Judge the Federal Register a guidance
finding that Respondent was filling (ALJ) Mary Ellen Bittner, who
large quantities of prescriptions for document entitled ‘‘Dispensing and
conducted a hearing on May 30 through Purchasing Controlled Substances over
controlled substances that were issued June 2, 2006, in Arlington, Virginia. At
through an internet site, iPharmacy.MD, the Internet.’’ 66 FR 21181 (2001); see
the hearing, both parties called also Gov. Ex. 18. DEA issued this
by physicians who did not have a witnesses to testify and introduced
legitimate doctor-patient relationship document to advise ‘‘the public
documentary and/or demonstrative concerning the application of current
with the individuals who ordered the evidence. Following the hearing, both
drugs. See Show Cause Order at 5–10. laws and regulations as they relate to
parties submitted briefs containing their the use of the Internet for dispensing
Based on my preliminary finding that proposed findings of fact, conclusions of
Respondent was ‘‘responsible for the [and] purchasing * * * controlled
law, and argument. substances.’’ 66 FR at 21181.
diversion of large quantities of
controlled substances,’’ and that its On October 2, 2006, the ALJ issued More specifically, the guidance
participation in this scheme ‘‘invites the her decision. In that decision, the ALJ document advised that ‘‘[o]nly
fraudulent procurement of controlled concluded that Respondent’s continued practitioners acting in the usual course
substances on a vast scale,’’ I concluded registration would be inconsistent with of their professional practice may
that Respondent’s continued registration the public interest and recommended prescribe controlled substances. * * *
pending these proceedings ‘‘would that I revoke Respondent’s registration A prescription not issued in the usual
constitute an imminent danger to the and deny any pending applications for course of professional practice * * * is
public health and safety,’’ and therefore renewal or modification. ALJ Dec. not considered valid. Both the
immediately suspended its registration. (hereinafter ALJ) at 32. Neither party practitioner and the pharmacy have a
Id. at 10. filed exceptions. responsibility to ensure that only
More specifically, the Show Cause On November 13, 2006, the ALJ legitimate prescriptions are written and
Order alleged that Respondent was forwarded the record to me for final filled.’’ Id.
filling prescriptions for phentermine, a agency action. Having carefully The guidance document also
schedule IV controlled substance, which reviewed the record as a whole, I hereby discussed the legality under existing
were issued to the customers of issued this decision and final order. I law of prescribing controlled substances
iPharmacy.MD by Richard Carino, a adopt the ALJ’s findings of fact and based on an on-line questionnaire. After
physician located in Port Richey, conclusions of law except as noted noting DEA’s regulation that a
Florida. Id. at 5. The Show Cause Order herein. Furthermore, while prescription for a controlled substance
alleged that Dr. Carino issued Respondent’s registration expired on is not effective unless it is ‘‘ ‘issued for
prescriptions for phentermine to November 30, 2006, and Respondent 1 Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA),
persons located ‘‘throughout the did not submit a renewal application, I an agency ‘‘may take official notice of facts at any
country’’ based solely on a nonetheless conclude that this case is stage in a proceeding—even in final decision.’’ U.S.
questionnaire. Id. The Show Cause not moot. See William R. Lockridge, 71 Dept. of Justice Attorney General’s Manual on the
Order further alleged that DEA FR 77791, 77797 (2006). Accordingly, Administrative Procedure Act 80 (1947) (Wm. W.
Gaunt & Sons, Inc., Reprint 1979). In accordance
investigators interviewed various while I do not adopt the ALJ’s with the APA and DEA’s regulations, Respondent
individuals who had been prescribed recommendation that Respondent’s
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES

is ‘‘entitled on timely request to an opportunity to

controlled substances by Dr. Carino; registration be revoked, I will review the show to the contrary.’’ 5 U.S.C. 556(e); see also 21
each of these persons stated that they propriety of the immediate suspension CFR 1316.59(e). To allow Respondent the
opportunity to refute this fact, Respondent may file
were not patients of Dr. Carino and had under section 304(a) of the Controlled a motion for reconsideration within fifteen days of
not provided him with their medical Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 824(a), and service of this order which shall commence with
records. Id. at 6. make the following findings. the mailing of the order.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:34 Jun 01, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04JNN1.SGM 04JNN1