Shatz v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, No. 88-1847

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore McMILLIAN and BEAM; McMILLIAN
Citation873 F.2d 1089
PartiesRichard N. SHATZ, M.D., Petitioner, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Kenneth G. Cloud, D.E.A., Respondent.
Decision Date27 April 1989
Docket NumberNo. 88-1847

Page 1089

873 F.2d 1089
Richard N. SHATZ, M.D., Petitioner,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Kenneth G. Cloud, D.E.A., Respondent.
No. 88-1847.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 13, 1988.
Decided April 27, 1989.

Page 1090

Murray A. Marks, St. Louis, Mo., for petitioner.

Theodore R. Carron, Washington, D.C., for respondent.

Before McMILLIAN and BEAM, Circuit Judges, and WHIPPLE, * District Judge.

McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge.

Dr. Richard N. Shatz petitions for review of a final decision of the United States Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), denying his application for a new certificate of registration to dispense controlled substances under 21 U.S.C. Sec. 823(f). Denial of Application (Richard N. Shatz), 53 Fed.Reg. 18,915 (May 25, 1988). For reversal, Shatz argues (1) the burden of proof was erroneously placed on him during the administrative proceedings and (2) the Administrator's decision is not supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. For the reasons discussed below, we deny the petition for review.

Shatz is a medical doctor; his area of specialization is plastic surgery. He has been a practicing physician for a number of years. In early 1982 DEA investigators discovered that, over a 20-month period, Shatz had ordered 20 ounces of pharmaceutical cocaine for office use. Shatz explained to the DEA investigators that he administered cocaine to his patients by first diluting the cocaine with water and then applying the solution to the face. DEA investigators consulted other area doctors who specialized in plastic surgery and determined that the use of one ounce of cocaine per month was considered excessive for office use and that cocaine was no longer widely used in practice. One consultant characterized Shatz's method of administering cocaine to patients as "outside the limit of reasonable practice."

In July 1982 DEA investigators executed an administrative inspection warrant at Shatz's office and obtained copies of his patient records. Shatz told the DEA investigators that he had not personally used any of the cocaine that he had ordered for office use. DEA investigators later interviewed 33 of Shatz's patients whose records indicated that Shatz had treated them with cocaine. Of these patients, 26 stated that they had not been treated with cocaine.

In November 1983 a federal grand jury indicted Shatz, charging him with one felony count of obtaining cocaine by misrepresentation, fraud, forgery, deception, or subterfuge, in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 843(a)(3). Shatz pled guilty to this one count and, on January 13, 1984, the district court suspended imposition of sentence, placed him on probation for four years and required him to perform 150 hours of community service. On January 20, 1984, Shatz surrendered his DEA certificate of registration. Shatz also surrendered his state medical license. Shatz completed the required period of community service at a neighborhood health clinic. His period of probation was terminated after two years. In October 1985 the state Board of Registration for the Healing Arts reinstated his medical license for a probationary period subject to the condition that he undergo periodic drug testing. In 1986 the state approved Shatz's request for permission to conduct activities with controlled drugs and, pursuant to a memorandum of understanding which set forth certain conditions, also granted him a state controlled substances registration.

In March 1986 Shatz filed an application with the DEA for a new certificate of registration under 21 U.S.C. Sec. 823(f). The DEA issued Shatz an order to show cause why the application should not be denied on the grounds that his registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. Shatz requested a hearing, and an evidentiary hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge Mary Ellen Bittner. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 practice notes
  • Decisions and Orders:
    • United States
    • Federal Register October 03, 2011
    • October 3, 2011
    ...v. DEA, 412 F.3d 165, 174 (D.C. Cir. 2005); Humphreys v. DEA, 96 F.3d 658, 661 (3d Cir. 1996); Shatz v. United States Dep't of Justice, 873 F.2d 1089, (8th Cir. 1989); Thomas E. Johnston, 45 FR 72, 311 (DEA 1980). Additionally, where a registrant has committed acts inconsistent with the pub......
  • Colorado Dog Fanciers, Inc. v. City and County of Denver By and Through City Council, No. 90SA342
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • November 12, 1991
    ...owner a proponent. See C. Koch, Jr., Administrative Law and Practice § 6.42 (1985 & Supp.1990); Shatz v. United States Dept. of Justice, 873 F.2d 1089, 1091 (8th Cir.1989) (physician applied for registration to dispense controlled substances, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) issued ord......
  • Decisions And Orders:
    • United States
    • Federal Register April 07, 2011
    • April 7, 2011
    ...would not be appropriate. Morall, 412 F.3d at 174; Humphreys v. DEA, 96 F.3d 658, 661 (3d Cir. 1996); Shatz v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 873 F.2d 1089, 1091 (8th Cir. 1989); Thomas Johnston, 45 FR 72, 311 (1980). Further, ``to rebut the Government's prima facie case, [the Respondent] is requir......
  • Morall v. Drug Enforcement Admin., No. 04-1367.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • June 24, 2005
    ...registrant to rebut the evidence. See Humphreys v. DEA, 96 F.3d 658, 661 (3d Cir.1996) (citing Shatz v. United States Dep't of Justice, 873 F.2d 1089, 1091 (8th Registrants dispensing controlled substances must comply with a number of statutory and regulatory requirements. As relevant here,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • Colorado Dog Fanciers, Inc. v. City and County of Denver By and Through City Council, No. 90SA342
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • November 12, 1991
    ...owner a proponent. See C. Koch, Jr., Administrative Law and Practice § 6.42 (1985 & Supp.1990); Shatz v. United States Dept. of Justice, 873 F.2d 1089, 1091 (8th Cir.1989) (physician applied for registration to dispense controlled substances, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) issued ord......
  • Morall v. Drug Enforcement Admin., No. 04-1367.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • June 24, 2005
    ...registrant to rebut the evidence. See Humphreys v. DEA, 96 F.3d 658, 661 (3d Cir.1996) (citing Shatz v. United States Dep't of Justice, 873 F.2d 1089, 1091 (8th Registrants dispensing controlled substances must comply with a number of statutory and regulatory requirements. As relevant here,......
  • Becker v. Drug Enforcement Admin., No. 12-4559
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • October 3, 2013
    ...140, at *6 (10th Cir. 1997) (unpublished); Azen v. DEA, 76 F.3d 384 at *2 (9th Cir. 1996) (unpublished); Schatz v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 873 F.2d 1089, 1092 (8th Cir. 1989); Noell v. Bensinger, 586 F.2d 554, 559 (5th Cir. 1978); Sokoloff v. Saxbe, 501 F.2d 571, 576-77 (2d Cir....
  • Humphreys v. Drug Enforcement Admin., No. 96-3099
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • September 17, 1996
    ...The DEA bears the burden of proving that registration would not be in the public interest. See Shatz v. United States Dep't of Justice, 873 F.2d 1089, 1091 (8th Cir.1989) ("We think the burden of persuasion and production on the issue whether registration would be in the public interest was......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 provisions
  • Decisions and Orders:
    • United States
    • Federal Register October 03, 2011
    • October 3, 2011
    ...v. DEA, 412 F.3d 165, 174 (D.C. Cir. 2005); Humphreys v. DEA, 96 F.3d 658, 661 (3d Cir. 1996); Shatz v. United States Dep't of Justice, 873 F.2d 1089, (8th Cir. 1989); Thomas E. Johnston, 45 FR 72, 311 (DEA 1980). Additionally, where a registrant has committed acts inconsistent with the pub......
  • Decisions And Orders:
    • United States
    • Federal Register April 07, 2011
    • April 7, 2011
    ...would not be appropriate. Morall, 412 F.3d at 174; Humphreys v. DEA, 96 F.3d 658, 661 (3d Cir. 1996); Shatz v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 873 F.2d 1089, 1091 (8th Cir. 1989); Thomas Johnston, 45 FR 72, 311 (1980). Further, ``to rebut the Government's prima facie case, [the Respondent] is requir......
  • Decisions And Orders:
    • United States
    • Federal Register April 07, 2011
    • April 7, 2011
    ...would not be appropriate. Morall, 412 F.3d at 174; Humphreys v. DEA, 96 F.3d 658, 661 (3d Cir. 1996); Shatz v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 873 F.2d 1089, 1091 (8th Cir. 1989); Thomas Johnston, 45 FR 72, 311 (1980). Further, ``to rebut the Government's prima facie case, [the Respondent] is requir......
  • Decisions And Orders:
    • United States
    • Federal Register October 11, 2011
    • October 11, 2011
    ...would not be appropriate. Morall, 412 F.3d at 174; Humphreys v. DEA, 96 F.3d 658, 661 (3d Cir. 1996); Shatz v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 873 F.2d 1089, (8th Cir. 1989); Thomas E. Johnston, 45 Fed. Reg. 72311, 72312 (1980). Further, ``to rebut the Government's prima facie case, [the Respondent]......
  • 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