Case Result: Physician Excluded from Medicare/Medicaid Sought DEA Registration

Professional:
Physician

Primary issue:
The DEA did not want to grant a DEA registration based on a physician’s Medicare exclusion and Medicaid exclusion.

Argument:
Our client is a Florida-based internal medicine physician. In 2016, he pleaded guilty for accepting a $700 kickback in referring a patient to a home health provider.

In his new role as medical director and sole, full-time physician at the state prison in Somerset, Pennsylvania, our client saw upward of 45 patients daily. He needed a DEA registration because inmates who needed immediate medical attention would have to wait, at times, up to 72 hours before medication could be obtained — and would “suffer needlessly while the facility locates a provider [to] write a prescription for a controlled substance.”

The DEA, in its order to show cause, contended that our client should not be granted a DEA registration due to his Medicare and Medicaid exclusion, and that “the underlying conviction that led to mandatory exclusion does not need to involve controlled substances to support sanction.”

Benefits of Using Chapman Law Group:
In analyzing our client’s recent history, during which he obtained licensure in Maryland, Montana, New York and Pennsylvania, we contended that the licensing authorities in those states do not perceive our client “‘as a threat to public safety and believe … his unfettered licensure is consistent with public interest.’”

We also attested that the government was unable to prove, “‘by a preponderance of the evidence,’” that our client’s DEA registration should be denied solely because of his Medicare/Medicaid exclusion. Further, we encouraged our client to be forthright about his kickback conviction, give concrete examples of how he had made strides to correct his actions, and be open about his remorse for what he did.

Result:
The U.S. Administrative Law Judge gave his recommendation that our client be granted a DEA registration “without further delay,” noting that “denying his application would not be remedial in nature, it would simply be added punishment.” He also added that our client:

• Never had any negative experiences in dispensing controlled substances, nor did he “fail to comply with any state or federal laws concerning controlled substances.”
• Never faced any “allegations of any other conduct that may threaten the public health and safety” outside of the kickback and resulting medical exclusion, and his kickback misconduct “was not related to controlled substances.”
• “[S]tipulated to the accuracy” of the Medicare/Medicaid exclusion, “demonstrated sincere remorse,” and accepted responsibility for his actions “sincere[ly] and unequivocal[ly].”

Area of Law:
DEA registration

Disclaimer:
This information is a sample of our past results. Prospective clients may not obtain the same or similar results. Every case is different and each case must be evaluated and handled on its own merits. The circumstances of your case may differ from the results provided. The information provided has not been reviewed or approved by the State Bar.