[Federal Register: September 1, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 170)]
[Notices]
[Page 52147-52148]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01se06-69]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
James Curtis Dilday, M.D.; Revocation of Registration
On June 27, 2005, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement
[[Page 52148]]
Administration, issued an Order to Show Cause to James Curtis Dilday,
M.D. (Respondent) of Little Rock, Arkansas. The Show Cause Order
proposed to revoke Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration,
BD1434872, as a practitioner, and to deny any pending applications for
renewal or modification of the registration, on the grounds that
Respondent's state medical license had been revoked, see 21 U.S.C.
824(a)(3), and that Respondent had committed acts that rendered his
registration inconsistent with the public interest. See id. Sec.
824(a)(4); see also id. Sec. 823(f).
The Show Cause Order specifically alleged that on numerous
occasions, Respondent had improperly prescribed controlled substances
(including Schedule II controlled substances) to ten patients. See Show
Cause Order at 2-4. The Show Cause Order also alleged that between
November 28, 2000, and November 12, 2002, Respondent had submitted
fifteen fraudulent claims to insurers for medical services that were
not performed. See id. at 4-5. The Show Cause Order further alleged
that Respondent had pled no contest on behalf of his medical
corporation in a state criminal proceeding to fifteen counts of
committing fraudulent insurance acts and fifteen counts of theft. See
id. at 6. Finally, the Show Cause Order alleged that the Arkansas State
Medical Board had revoked Respondent's state medical license. See id.
The Show Cause Order also notified Respondent of its right to a
hearing. See id. at 7.
Respondent, through his counsel, requested a hearing; the case was
assigned to Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Mary Ellen Bittner.
Thereafter, on August 11, 2005, the Government moved for summary
disposition and to stay the proceeding. The Government's motion for
summary disposition was based on the fact that on June 21, 2004, the
Arkansas State Medical Board revoked Respondent's state medical
license. The Government asserted that as a result of the revocation of
Respondent's medical license, Respondent was without authority to
handle controlled substances in Arkansas, the State in which Respondent
was registered with DEA. Because DEA has consistently interpreted the
Controlled Substances Act as barring a federal registration if a
practitioner lacks authority under state law to handle controlled
substances in the State where he practices, the Government sought a
ruling from the ALJ recommending the revocation of Respondent's DEA
registration and terminating the proceeding.
On August 12, 2005, the ALJ issued a memorandum to counsel offering
Respondent the opportunity to respond to the Government's motion by 4
p.m. eastern time on August 29, 2005. By September 23, 2005, when no
response had been filed, the ALJ issued her Opinion and Recommended
Decision.
The ALJ explained that Respondent did not deny that he lacked
authority under Arkansas law to handle controlled substances in that
State. ALJ Dec. at 2. Noting that DEA precedents have ``consistently
held that a person may not hold a DEA registration if he is without
appropriate authority under the laws of the state in which he does
business,'' the ALJ concluded that ``[b]ecause Respondent lacks this
state authority * * * he is not entitled to retain his DEA
registration.'' Id. (citations omitted). Furthermore, as no material
fact was in dispute, summary disposition was appropriate. See id. The
ALJ thus granted the government's motion and recommended that
Respondent's registration be revoked and any pending applications be
denied. See id. at 2-3.
Having considered the record as a whole, I hereby issue this
decision and final order. I adopt in its entirety the ALJ's opinion and
recommended decision. Because the facts are straightforward and not in
dispute, there is no need to elaborate on them. As the ALJ found,
Respondent is no longer authorized to distribute controlled substances
under State law. Therefore, under our precedents, Respondent is not
entitled to maintain his DEA registration. See Sheran Arden Yeates,
M.D., 71 FR 39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 FR 51104,
51105 (1993); Bobby Watts, M.D., 53 FR 11919, 11920 (1988).
Order
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C.
Sec. Sec. 823(f) & 824(a), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b) & 0.104, I
hereby order that DEA Certificate of Registration, BD1434872, issued to
James Curtis Dilday, M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. I further
order that any pending application for renewal or modification of such
registration be, and they hereby are, denied. This order is effective
October 2, 2006.
Dated: August 22, 2006.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. E6-14521 Filed 8-31-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P