In a decision issued on October 30, Judge Joseph Goodwin of the Southern District of West Virginia dissolved an Order of Immediate Suspension of Registration (“ISO”) issued by DEA against Oak Hill Hometown Pharmacy, a West Virginia pharmacy. Without getting too far into the factual weeds of this case, I do think there are two or three critical takeaways related to both the adjudication of this matter and to DEA’s view of Subutex vs. Suboxone.
Uttam Dhillon, DEA Acting Administrator, issued a final order today in the case of the revocation of a New York doctor’s DEA registration. But its implications go well beyond this doctor’s circumstances.
Here are the basics. Dr. Jeffrey Stein was convicted of tax-related crimes in the Southern District of New York in 2015. Specifically, Dr. Stein had provided false receipts and other fabricated documents to his accountant to reduce the amount of taxes he would have to pay and, in turn, to mislead the IRS Auditor into believing that the claimed expenses were legitimate. Dr. Stein pled guilty to these charges. Of particular relevance to today’s order, Dr. Stein had used, among the fabricated materials, “the names of four disabled military veterans (including two former patients whose identities he obtained as a result of his work for the V.A, [and] . . . created bogus invoices in the names of those veterans.”
As I have previously written, there is a long list of regulatory changes coming from DEA in the next few years. Rather than publish one or more of the long overdue regulations listed on DEA’s Regulatory Agenda, on April 30, 2019, the agency will publish a Final Rule creating a “discretionary review” process allowing the Administrator to review an Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ’s”) denial of a request for an interlocutory appeal. Note that this is a Final Rule, not a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The agency was able to bypass the traditional notice and comment rulemaking process by categorizing this rule as a Rule of Agency, pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act. As such, the rule is effective immediately.
Requests for interlocutory appeals can take many forms in a DEA administrative proceeding. Often, they are a result of a procedural or evidentiary ruling by an ALJ during the prehearing process. DEA regulations currently give ALJs broad authority to rule on a request to seek an interlocutory appeal. The ALJ’s decision to deny a request for an interlocutory appeal is not reviewable. Until now.
The Department of Justice recently published its list of proposed regulatory actions for the near and long term. It appears that the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA’s) Regulatory Drafting and Support Section is going to have a busy year. The Unified Agenda indicates several potential regulatory changes are in store for the coming year, some of which may have significant impact on the regulated community.
A few highlights:
- Updates to the suspicious order regulation have been delayed to at least February 2019.
- DEA will provide guidance for Emergency Medical Services wishing to handle controlled substances.
- After more than nine years, DEA is finally implementing regulations regarding the practice of telemedicine, as required by Congress in the Ryan Haight Act.
- Guidance is forthcoming regarding the partial filling of prescriptions for Schedule II controlled substances as a result of related provisions in the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (CARA) of 2016.
- It appears that additional (and significant changes) will be coming to DEA’s quota process.
- DEA is getting rid of the carbon copy 222 form! (for those too young to understand the concept of carbon copies, click here)
Below are links to each notification and a summary taken directly from the related Abstract.
Stay tuned. We will provide updates as they become available.
While a great deal of attention is given to DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge Mulrooney’s (“CALJ Mulrooney’s”) opinion regarding the impact of the Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug Enforcement Act on DEA enforcement efforts, very little attention has been afforded a shocking and unprecedented attack by a sitting DEA Administrative Law Judge on DEA’s formal administrative hearing process found within the same article.
Hidden in plain sight at the end of CALJ Mulrooney’s and Ms. Katherine Legel’s soon-to-be-published law review article is a thirty page attack on the procedures that govern DEA administrative hearings, substantive decisions in final agency decisions, and the individuals assigned to draft final agency decisions on behalf of the agency.
On June 30, 2017, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued an order in Masters Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Drug Enforcement Administration (No. 15-1335). In sum, the Court denied Masters Pharmaceutical, Inc.’s (“Masters”) Petition for Review seeking to overturn the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (“DEA”) revocation of Masters’ DEA registration. This decision has wide-ranging implications for DEA-registered wholesalers, who are required to detect and report suspicious orders of controlled substances.
On November 10, 2016, the DEA issued its final decision and order in the case against Jones Total Health Care Pharmacy, L.L.C. (“Jones Pharmacy”) and SND Health Care L.L.C. (“SND”). The
Administrator ordered that the DEA deny Jones Pharmacy’s registration renewal application and also deny SND’s pending registration application. These orders were consistent with the…
DEA recently revoked the registration of the Medicine Shoppe, a San Antonio, Texas, pharmacy, based on a finding that the pharmacy violated the Controlled Substances Act in all of the following ways:
- dispensed controlled substances without a prescription;
- dispensed controlled substances when the prescription was
In the Matter of Moore Clinical Trials, L.L.C (July 11, 2014) DEA last month denied the DEA research registration application of an Arkansas clinical research company, finding that the person who would be primarily responsible for ordering and storing controlled substances had a “shocking” lack of knowledge of the fundamental requirements imposed by the Controlled…
In the Matter of Roy S. Schwartz, D.D.S (June 16, 2014) DEA suspended for one year the DEA registration of a Tacoma, Washington dentist with more than 50 years experience after he admitted “sharing” his DEA number with another dentist who performed conscious sedation, and who had previously surrendered his DEA registration for cause. DEA…