Zvi H. Perper, M.D., Decision and Order

Document Headings Document headings vary by document type but may contain the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document the number of the CFR title and the number of each part the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly related to the agency docket number / agency internal file number the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions See the Document Drafting Handbook for more details. Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. 11-34] On July 19, 2011, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Gail A. Randall issued the attached recommended decision. The Respondent did not file exceptions to the decision. Having reviewed the entire record, I have decided to adopt the ALJ's recommended rulings, findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommended Order except for her legal conclusions as to the initial visits of the two undercover officers (UCs) and her discussion in the first full paragraph at page 34 of her slip opinion. [ 1 ] However, I need not decide whether the prescriptions Respondent issued at the initial visits of the two UCs violated 21 CFR 1306.04(a) , because there is substantial evidence to support the ALJ's legal conclusions that he acted outside of the usual course of professional practice and lacked a legitimate medical purpose in issuing prescriptions at the UCs' subsequent visits. More specifically, one week after the initial visit of David Hays (UC1), at which he was prescribed 150 Percocet, a drug which combines 10 mg of oxycodone with 325 mg of acetaminophen, Hays returned to Respondent complaining that the drug was causing digestive problems. Respondent then prescribed 150 Roxicodone (oxycodone) 30 mg, without any inquiry into Hays' pain level. Tr. 54, GX 3a, at 13. Respondent noted in the chart, however, that Hays “had no relief [from] pain.” GX 12, at 14. With respect to this prescription, the Government's Exp…