tx prescribe doctors in that phentermine arlington

Respondentsof Arlington, Texas. The Orders immediately suspended each Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration as a practitioner, drug interaction between xanax and oxycodone the grounds that each had issued numerous controlled- substance prescriptions over. More specifically, the Show Cause Orders alleged that each Respondent had participated in a scheme run by Mr. With respect to Nirmal Saran, the Show Cause Order alleged that his "primary practice area is ophthalmology.

The Show Cause Order further alleged that between May 1 and June 17,he had prescribed thirty-seven different controlled substances to persons in at least forty-four States, and that between May 18 and June 8,he issued 1, controlled substance cs prescriptions and had issued as many as prescriptions in a day to persons in thirty- four Arlington. The Order further alleged that sixty-four percent of the prescriptions he issued through the scheme were for schedule III drugs containing hydrocodone.

With respect to Nisha Saran, the Show Cause Order alleged that between May 27 and June 3,she had issued cs prescriptions to persons in at least forty States, and that she doctors that prescribe issued as many as cs prescriptions to persons in twenty-six States in a single day. Relatedly, the Show Cause Order alleged that fifty-nine percent of the prescriptions she wrote were for schedule III drugs containing hydrocodone.

Both Show Cause Orders further alleged that each Respondent's cs prescriptions were not issued "for a legitimate medical purpose in the usual course of professional practice," and violated 21 CFR I further found that the allegations supported the conclusion that each Respondent's "continued registration during the pendency of [the] proceedings would constitute an imminent danger to the public health and arlington. On October 20,counsel for each Respondent requested a hearing on the allegations of the respective Show Cause Orders.

On March, a hearing was held in Forth Worth, Texas. During the hearing, both the Government and Respondents put on testimony and entered documentary evidence into the record. Following the hearing, the parties submitted briefs containing their proposed findings, conclusion of law, and argument. On November 22,while the decision of the ALJ was still pending, the Government moved to terminate both proceedings on the ground that each Respondent's registration had expired on February 28,and neither Respondent had submitted a renewal application.

Thereafter, Respondents' counsel filed oppositions to both termination motions. In support of her opposition, Nisha Saran submitted an affidavit establishing that in Februaryand before the expiration of her registration, she had attempted to renew her registration electronically at the Agency's website, but was unable to do arlington. In her affidavit, Nisha Saran further stated that "I have at no time abandoned my desire to obtain DEA registration during the pendency of this case.

In support of his opposition, Nirmal Saran submitted an affidavit in which he stated that in Februaryand before the expiration of his registration, he had asked his daughter to renew his registration at the Agency's website, but she was unable to do so. In his affidavit, Nirmal Saran also stated that "I have at no time abandoned my desire to obtain DEA Registration during the pendency of this case. Thereafter, the Government moved to withdraw both termination motions noting my then-recent decision in William R.

Lockridge, 71 FRwhich held, in a case arising under similar circumstances, that the proceeding was not moot. The ALJ also ordered the parties to address what factual findings were relevant and what legal standard should be applied in determining the validity of the suspension order. In the Query, the ALJ asked whether in light of the expiration of each Respondent's registration she should make findings of fact, whether she should simply forward the record to me for a final order, or whether the Government should forward the investigative file to me with the materials contained therein at diazepam and clonazepam mix time the immediate suspension orders were issued.

In my ruling, I noted that both the Government and the Respondents agreed that the case was not moot because even though the Respondents' registrations had expired, each Respondent maintained arlington phentermine they had not "abandoned their desire to obtain DEA registrations during the pendency of "arlington phentermine" case. In light of these circumstances, I "conclude[d] that principles of judicial economy are best served by making findings of fact and conclusions of law based on the record established in this.

I further noted that "my additional findings that Respondents posed 'an imminent danger to public health or safety' [was] not reviewable in the proceeding before" the ALJ. Thereafter, the ALJ issued her recommended decisions in each case. With respect to Respondent Nirmal Saran, the ALJ concluded that between May 18 and June 8,he had issued over 1, prescriptions for controlled substances to treat pain, and that these "prescriptions were issued outside the scope of professional practice, and were not issued for legitimate medical purposes" in violation of DEA regulations.

In support of her conclusion, the ALJ noted that Respondent practices as an ophthalmologist, that he was licensed to practice medicine only in Texas and yet issued prescriptions to patients in other States, and that he failed to comply with phentermine arlington standards of the medical profession for establishing a doctor-patient relationship. The ALJ also noted that Respondent had failed to properly safeguard his controlled substance prescribing authority because he "allow[ed] his signature to be scanned into a computer database" with the result that "non-medical personnel were approving the dispensing of controlled substances "arlington phentermine" [his] name.

Finally, the ALJ noted that Respondent did not maintain patient records and that there was "no indication that [he] interacted with the patient[s] to advise [them] concerning the risks involved in taking the controlled substances," or that he "used any of the can you take 10mg of ambien while pregnant control mechanisms to ensure these individuals were not "phentermine arlington" the drugs.

Finally, the ALJ noted that Respondent chose not to testify and thus offered no assurance that he would comply with Federal law and regulations in the future. The ALJ thus concluded that Respondent's "registration would be adverse to the public interest. With respect to Respondent Nisha Saran, xanax taken with methadone and potentiates ALJ concluded that she too had issued cs prescriptions "outside the scope of professional practice" and without "legitimate medical purposes.

In support of her conclusion, the ALJ adopted the conclusion of the Government's expert that Respondent issued prescriptions in violation of DEA regulations based on his review of her "prescriptions, log sheets, [her] type of practice, and the vast numbers of prescriptions that she wrote during a given period of time.

The ALJ also found that "non-medical personnel were approving the dispensing of controlled substances in [her] name," and that "Respondent provided these individuals with the ability to act in such a manner by allowing her signature to be scanned into a phentermine arlington database. The ALJ thus concluded that "[s]uch a cavalier way of safeguarding her authority to prescribe doctors that prescribe substances is certainly outside the public interest.

The ALJ further observed phentermine arlington between May and JuneRespondent had issued "approximately controlled substance drug orders," but did not "maintain adequate patient records. More specifically, the ALJ observed that "the record contains no charts documenting the Respondent's "phentermine arlington" for which the controlled substances were prescribed, no treatment plan, and no indication phentermine arlington the Respondent interacted with the patient to codeine dihydrocodeine or tramadol 50mg dosage the patient concerning the risks involved in taking the controlled substances and the need for the patient to follow her directions concerning the appropriate quantities to take.

Finally, the ALJ noted that Respondent chose not to testify and thus had offered no assurance that she would comply with Federal law and regulations in the future. The ALJ therefore concluded that Respondent's registration would be "adverse to the public interest. Thereafter, Respondents' counsel filed exceptions to the ALJ's recommended decisions in each matter and the record was forwarded to me for final agency action.

Having considered the entire record, as well as the exceptions filed in both matters, I phentermine arlington issue this Decision and these Final Orders. I adopt the ALJ's ultimate conclusion of law in each matter that the respective Respondent's registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. I make the following findings of fact. GX 1 Docket No. Respondent's registration expired on February 28, Respondent has not submitted an application to renew her registration.

The Chief of the Registration Unit further stated that on November 27,an additional attempt was made to renew the registration which resulted in the same message that online renewal was not available. The Chief of the Registration Unit also testified that on February 6 and November 27,attempts were made to renew Respondent Nirmal Saran's DEA Registration AS; each of these attempts resulted in the message that online renewal was not available.

According to the Chief of the Registration Unit, if the registrants had called the Registration Call Center, they would have been sent a renewal form and "the notation 'Renewal Notice Sent' would have been documented in DEA records but, no such documentation was in the computer history for either DEA number. The Chief of the Registration Unit further explained that the Arlington were prevented from renewing their registration online because their registrations had been immediately suspended.

I find, however, that the Respondents could have obtained renewal applications from the Agency and submitted them via mail. Respondent has not submitted an application to renew his registration. Respondent is licensed to practice medicine only in the State of Texas. Respondent practices as an ophthalmologist. Johar Saran owned Carrington Health Care System which later changed its name "phentermine" Infiniti Services Groupa corporate entity located in Arlington, Texas, which owned approximately eighteen to twenty pharmacies.

On November 14,Joe Saran entered into a plea agreement with the United States Attorney for the North District of Texas in which he pled guilty to, inter alia, conspiring to distribute controlled substances, in violation of 21 That prescribe doctors. GX at Rx Great Prices was owned by Gil Lozano, id. Rx Great Prices used Joe Saran's businesses exclusively to fill its orders.

The Web site was xanax addiction long term effects by Tara Jones. As part phentermine arlington the investigation, DEA Investigators conducted trash runs at Infiniti's headquarters during which they found numerous documents including prescription labels for controlled substances dispensed by the Triphasic Pharmacy, a pharmacy owned by Johar Saran, to out of state persons, which listed Nirmal Saran as the prescribing physician.

During some of the trash runs, the DIs also recovered several daily reports which listed hundreds of prescriptions for schedule Arlington phentermine controlled substances containing hydrocodone which were dispensed by Triphasic; the reports listed Nirmal Saran as the prescriber. See GX 5, at No. Respondent thus contends that this "implies that someone attempted to use Respondent's name in association with the incorrect Doctors that prescribe number.

It is acknowledged that the daily reports do not contain Respondent's correct DEA number. As found below, however, Respondent admitted to investigators that he prescribed over the Internet. Moreover, Respondent did not testify at the hearing and thus did not deny that he issued the prescriptions dispensed by Triphasic. I therefore arlington the exception and find that he did issue the prescriptions.

According to Respondent's argument, the labels are not evidence of prescriptions at all. I conclude, however, that a pharmacy's employees would not prepare hundreds, if not thousands, of prescription labels which included the patient's name and address, dispensing instructions, and various warnings, unless they were to be used to dispense the prescriptions. I therefore reject Respondent's contention. Respondent also objects to the admission of numerous exhibits on the ground that they pre-date the events which form the basis of the Show Cause Order.

At the hearing, however, Respondent did not object to the admission of any of these exhibits on the ground that they were irrelevant because they involved prescribings which pre-dated the period alleged in the Show Cause Order. Respondent objected only to portions of GXs 5 and 8, and did so on the limited basis that they contained a few prescriptions written by other doctors.

The prescriptions issued by other doctors were removed from the exhibits and the exhibits were entered into the record. I therefore conclude that Respondent has waived his objection to the admission of these exhibits. Thereafter, DEA investigators obtained a court order under how long can you be prescribed ambien U. According to the DI who served as a minimizer of the intercept, Nisha and Nirmal Saran's names appeared as approvers of prescriptions in database files that were downloaded by persons at Infiniti from the Nations Drug Supply arlington. Moreover, their names also appeared in various e- mails that were intercepted.

In this email, Ms. Jones provided Nisha and Nirmal Saran's addresses, phone numbers, and medical license numbers. In concluding the email, Ms. Jones apologized for taking "so long," and added that "Nisha was in LA and just got back today. Jones forwarding a username and password so that Nisha Saran could "login to the shopping cart admin.

After intercepting the database files, the DI used Microsoft Excel to extract the data and put it into spreadsheet form. The Government introduced into evidence zolpidem effect on kidneys listing the prescriptions which were dispensed by pharmacies that were controlled by Joe Saran and Infiniti between May 27 and June 17, See GXs 4- 58 Among the drugs prescribed by each Respondent were such highly abused controlled substances as schedule III combination drugs containing hydrocodone, and schedule IV benzodiazepines such as diazepam and lorazepam.

Eighty-six to persons in Florida, eighty-seven to persons in California, sixty-four to persons in Tennessee, thirty-two to persons in Ohio, and twenty-nine to persons in North Carolina. Moreover, between May how long does it take valium to get in your system, and June 3,Nisha Saran issued controlled substance prescriptions in the following amounts to persons in these States: Seventeen to persons in Florida, eleven to persons in California, ten to persons in North Carolina and four to persons in Ohio.

While one of Respondent's witnesses testified that Tara Jones had approved an order using Ms. The spreadsheets containing the intercepted prescriptions show, however, that Respondent issued numerous prescriptions months earlier. Moreover, even if Respondent's name was used on some prescriptions without her permission, I note that Respondent did not testify and thus did not deny that she issued the prescriptions. Nor did she explain why her signature was found in a hard drive of a computer at Infiniti, her brother's business.

Moreover, as explained above, other evidence links Respondent to the Nations' and Rx Great Prices' schemes.