St. Croix v. Drug Enf't Admin.

• Decision Date: 10 June 2022
• Docket Number: 21-1116
• Parties: Jennifer L. St. Croix, M.D., Petitioner v. Drug Enforcement Administration, Respondent
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

Jennifer L. St. Croix, M.D., Petitioner v. Drug Enforcement Administration, Respondent

No. 21-1116

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

June 10, 2022

On Petition for Review of a Final Order of the Drug Enforcement Administration

Before: Henderson and Rogers, Circuit Judges, and Silberman Senior Circuit Judge.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM

This petition for review was considered on the record from the Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA"), the briefs, and the deferred appendix. The court has afforded the issues full consideration and has determined that they do not warrant a published opinion. See Fed. R. App. P. 36; D.C. Cir. R. 36(d). It is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the petition for review of the Drug Enforcement Administration's decision be DENIED.

Exercising authority pursuant to the Controlled Substances Act ("CSA"), DEA revoked Dr. St. Croix's registration to dispense controlled substances and denied all pending applications for renewal or modification of her registration. Jennifer L. St. Croix, M.D., Decision and Order, 86 Fed.Reg. 19010 (DEA, Apr. 12, 2021). Dr. St Croix filed a timely petition for review. See 21 U.S.C. § 877. The court will uphold DEA's revocation decision if substantial evidence supported its factual determinations, Penick Corp. v. DEA, 491 F.3d 483 488 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (citing 21 U.S.C. § 877), its reasoning is not "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law," id. (quoting Tourus Records, Inc. v. DEA, 259 F.3d 731, 736 (D.C. Cir. 2001)); see also 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), and its "sanction" is not a "flagrant departure from DEA policy and practice," Chein v. DEA, 533 F.3d 828, 835 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (quoting Morall v. DEA, 412 F.3d 165, 183 (D.C. Cir. 2005)). Applying these standards, the court concludes that DEA acted reasonably and within its discretion.

Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 824(a)(4), DEA may revoke or suspend a doctor's registration to prescribe controlled substances if it finds that the registrant "committed such acts as would render his registration under section 823 of this title inconsistent with the public interest as determined under such section." 21 U.S.C. § 823(f) provides five factors to determine whether registration is "inconsistent with the public interest":

(1) The recommendation of the appropriate State licensing board or professional disciplinary authority.

(2) The applicant's experience in dispensing, or conducting research with respect to controlled substances.

(3) The applicant's conviction record under Federal or State laws relating to the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of controlled substances.

(4) Compliance with applicable State, Federal, or local laws relating to controlled substances.

(5) Such other conduct which may threaten the public health and safety.

Dr. St. Croix entered into a three-year memorandum of agreement ("MOA") with DEA following an investigation concerning her prescription of controlled substances. The MOA granted Dr. St. Croix's application for registration to prescribe controlled substances subject to a series of conditions. These included that she would "abide by all Federal, State, and local laws and regulations pertaining to controlled substances" and "maintain a log of all controlled substances prescribed, administered or dispensed to patients . . . for review by DEA personnel at any time."

In the instant proceedings DEA found that Dr. St. Croix: (1) failed to maintain medical records of her prescriptions of controlled substances; (2) prescribed controlled substances for no legitimate medical purposes; (3) stored controlled substances at an unregistered...