Akhtar-Zaidi v. Drug Enforcement Administration
841 F.3d 707
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- Dr. Syed J. Akhtar-Zaidi, an Ohio physician, was investigated after three undercover DEA agents posed as patients (Sept 2012–May 2013) and DEA seized controlled substances from his offices.
- The DEA Deputy Administrator issued an Immediate Suspension Order (ISO) suspending his DEA registration on imminent-danger grounds; Dr. Zaidi requested an ALJ hearing.
- At the ALJ hearing Dr. Zaidi sought late supplementation of witnesses (expert, employees, former patients); the ALJ denied the request; Dr. Zaidi proffered what those witnesses would have said.
- The ALJ recommended affirming the ISO and revoking registration; the Administrator affirmed the ISO and seizures but declined to revoke as moot because Dr. Zaidi’s registration expired and he did not renew.
- The Administrator found substantial evidence that Dr. Zaidi prescribed controlled substances outside the usual course of professional practice, falsified records (exaggerated exams/pain levels, reported tests not done), failed to obtain patient addresses, and failed to document chronic-pain treatment per Ohio rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALJ exclusion of proffered witnesses (expert, employees, former patients) | Exclusion was arbitrary and denied fair opportunity to present defense | Exclusion was within ALJ discretion and any error was harmless | Denial was at most harmless error; outcome would stand without that testimony |
| Sufficiency of evidence for ISO (imminent danger) | ISO unsupported; evidence insufficient to show imminent danger | Record shows failure to comply with laws creating substantial likelihood of abuse absent suspension | Substantial evidence supports ISO; suspension within Deputy Administrator’s authority |
| Prima facie showing that continued registration inconsistent with public interest | Administrator failed to meet prima facie burden under 21 U.S.C. § 824 | Government presented repeated prescribing outside professional practice and statutory violations | Administrator met prima facie burden; suspension affirmed |
| Legitimacy/usual course of prescribing to undercover agents | Prescriptions were legitimate medical practice | Prescriptions lacked legitimate medical purpose; diagnoses unsupported by exams and records | Found prescriptions outside usual course and lacking legitimate purpose |
| Alleged falsification of medical records | Denies falsifying records | Records and expert testimony show fabricated/exaggerated exam findings and pain levels | Substantial evidence that records were falsified |
| Severity of sanction (ISO ≈ revocation) | ISO functions as de facto revocation and is disproportional | Agency sanction decision is within lawful authority and entitled to limited review | Court declines to second-guess sanction; review limited to validity which supports ISO |
Key Cases Cited
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the U.S. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (agency review requires rational connection between facts and decision)
- Hoxie v. DEA, 419 F.3d 477 (6th Cir. 2005) (standard for agency consideration of relevant data in DEA actions)
- Volkman v. DEA, 567 F.3d 215 (6th Cir. 2009) (Administrator must consider § 823(f) factors but need not make explicit findings on each)
- Woodard v. United States, 725 F.2d 1072 (6th Cir. 1984) (sanction selection is within agency’s lawful authority and subject to limited judicial review)
- Latin Ams. for Soc. & Econ. Dev. v. Fed. Highway Admin., 756 F.3d 447 (6th Cir. 2014) (review of agency action is highly deferential)