Fourth Street Pharmacy v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, Drug Enforcement Admin.

Decision Date14 January 1988
Docket NumberNo. 87-2226,87-2226
Citation836 F.2d 1137
PartiesFOURTH STREET PHARMACY, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, Respondent.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

J. Douglas Austin, Watertown, S.D., for petitioner.

Harry S. Harbin, Washington, D.C., for respondent.

Before ARNOLD, FAGG, Circuit Judges, and LARSON, * Senior District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Fourth Street Pharmacy, Inc. (Fourth Street), petitions for review of a final order of the United States Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), revoking the certificate of registration that permitted Fourth Street to dispense certain controlled substances and denying Fourth Street's pending application for renewal of that registration. See 21 U.S.C. Sec. 822. We affirm.

Fourth Street is a retail pharmacy in Watertown, South Dakota. As a result of an investigation by the Medicaid Fraud Unit of the South Dakota Attorney General's office, Fourth Street pled guilty in South Dakota state court to one felony charge of dispensing a Schedule IV substance without a prescription. See S.D. Codified Laws Ann. Secs. 22-42-4.1 (Rev. 1979); 34-20B-26(7) (Rev. 1986). As part of the plea bargain entered into with the state, Fourth Street was ordered to pay a $5000 fine and make restitution of over $21,000 to the state's Medicaid Program.

Approximately one year after Fourth Street pled guilty, the DEA began proceedings to revoke Fourth Street's federal certificate of registration and to deny a pending application for renewal of that registration. An evidentiary hearing was held, and the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found Fourth Street had engaged in the following misconduct after receiving warnings from investigators: dispensing drugs without proper physician-authorized prescriptions and improperly refilling prescriptions; falsifying prescription records; dispensing one drug while billing the Medicaid Program for another; billing Medicaid for drugs not actually dispensed to customers; and preparing false prescriptions in the name of a deceased customer. The parties also stipulated Fourth Street had been convicted after a guilty plea of the South Dakota felony, which the ALJ found was a felony related to a controlled substance.

Based on this evidence, the ALJ recommended revocation of Fourth Street's registration and denial of its pending renewal application. The DEA adopted the ALJ's recommendation in its entirety, finding that Fourth Street's

continued failure to comply with the law regarding prescriptions for controlled substances; the unprofessional conduct in handling the business of the pharmacy, including billing the State of South Dakota for unauthorized prescriptions for a dead person; and the fraudulent billing to medicaid, shows that [Fourth Street is] not to be trusted with a DEA Registration.

See 52 Fed.Reg. 32,068-69 (1985). The DEA revoked Fourth Street's certificate of registration and denied any outstanding application for registration. See id.; see also 21 U.S.C. Secs. 823-24.

Fourth Street contends the DEA's action must be reversed because: (1) the ALJ's finding with regard to three unauthorized prescriptions is based on hearsay testimony, is not supported by substantial evidence, and was prejudicial to the ALJ's other findings and conclusions; (2) the ALJ improperly limited cross-examination regarding the method by which South Dakota computed the amount of Fourth Street's fraudulent Medicaid billings; (3) the sanction of revoking Fourth Street's DEA certificate of registration was an excessive penalty constituting an abuse of discretion; and (4) the DEA was precluded from revoking Fourth Street's certificate of registration because the plea bargain agreement between Fourth Street and the South Dakota Attorney General was intended to bar further state or federal action against Fourth Street. We reject each of these contentions.

Initially, we have reviewed the record and conclude all the ALJ's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • U.S. v. Lua
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • 15 Enero 1998
    ... ... between defendant Kozak and Iowa law enforcement personnel. The government further asserts that ... before securing defendant's cooperation); Fourth Street Pharmacy v. United States Dep't of ... Cir.1988) (holding that plea agreement with Drug Enforcement Agency agent not enforceable when ... ...
  • U.S. v. Cordova-Perez
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 25 Septiembre 1995
    ... ... in exchange for his guilty plea to the state drug charge, and that he would not be subjected to ... See, e.g., Fourth Street Pharmacy v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 836 ... ...
  • United States v. Lobsinger
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • 5 Agosto 2015
    ... ... (FBI), along with state and local law enforcement officers, executed the search warrant. A local ... didn't do justice for the victim, " Hearing Tr. at 46; and (4) her ... did not bind federal prosecutor); Fourth Street Pharmacy v ... United States Dep't of ... ...
  • Shatz v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 88-1847
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 27 Abril 1989
    ... ... of the United States Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), denying his ... by law or is unjustified by the facts." Fourth Street Pharmacy v. United States Department of ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT