Menu
ADVERTISIMENT
Home Beauty & Well-being LabCorp A doctor is signing off on drug test fraudulently his license was pulled he should not be able to sign off on any testing

LabCorp review: A doctor is signing off on drug test fraudulently his license was pulled he should not be able to sign off on any testing

K
Author of the complaint
10:53 pm EDT
Review updated:
Featured review
This review was chosen algorithmically as the most valued customer feedback.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1996-07-30/html/96-19257.htm

He is working under labcorp out of Texas and several other states and the testing is FALSE HE IS a fraud

[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 147 (Tuesday, July 30, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages [protected]]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-19257]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[Docket No. 96-7]

David R. Nahin, M.D.; Revocation of Registration

On November 9, 1995, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an Order to Show Cause to David R. Nahin, M.D., (Respondent) of Waukesha, Wisconsin, notifying him of an opportunity to show cause as to why DEA
should not revoke his DEA Certificate of Registration, AN7645229, under 21 U.S.C. 824(a), and deny any pending applications for renewal of such registration as a practitioner under 21 U.S.C. 823(f), for the reason that his continued registration would be inconsistent with the public interest. On November 27, 1995, the Respondent, through counsel, filed a timely request for a hearing, and the matter was docketed before Administrative Law Judge Mary Ellen Bittner. However, on January 19,
1996, the Government filed a Motion for Summary Disposition and to Stay Proceedings with copies of supporting documents. Specifically, the Respondent voluntarily had surrendered his medical license pursuant to a copy of the State of Wisconsin, Medical Examining Board's (Medical Board) Final Decision and Order dated April 28, 1993. Further, pursuant to an order of the Medical Board's dated August 9, 1994, the Respondent was granted a limited medical license which precluded him from having physician-patient contact. Also, a letter dated September 27, 1994, from the State of Wisconsin, Department of Regulation and Licensing, informed DEA that, ``while Dr. Nahin is not prohibited from holding a DEA registration, use of the registration in prescribing medications would constitute a violation of his limited license.'' The Respondent was afforded an opportunity to respond to the Government's motion on or before February 5, 1996, but no response was filed.
On February 15, 1996, Judge Bittner issued her Opinion and Recommended Decision, (1) finding that the Respondent, practicing medicine under

[[Page 39669]]

a limited license in Wisconsin, lacked authorization to handle controlled substances there, (2) granting the Government's Motion for Summary Disposition, and (3) recommending that the Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration be revoked. Neither party filed exceptions to her decision, and on March 15, 1996, Judge Bittner transmitted the record of these proceedings and her opinion to the Deputy Administrator.
The Deputy Administrator has considered the record in its entirety, and pursuant to 21 CFR 1316.67, hereby issues his final order based upon findings of fact and conclusions of law as hereinafter set forth. The Deputy Administrator adopts, in full, the decision of the Administrative Law Judge. The Drug Enforcement Administration cannot register or maintain the registration of a practitioner who is not duly authorized to handle controlled substances in the State in which he conducts his business. See 21 U.S.C. 823 (f) (authorizing the Attorney General to register a practitioner to dispense controlled substances only if the applicant is authorized to dispense controlled substances
under the laws of the state in which he or she practices); 802(21) (defining ``practitioner'' as one authorized by the United States or the state in which he or she practices to handle controlled substances in the course of professional practice or research); and 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) (authorizing the Attorney General to revoke a registration upon as finding that the registrant ``has had his State license or registration suspended, revoked, or denied by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in * * * dispensing of controlled substances * * *''). This rerequisite has been consistently upheld. See Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 FR 51, 104 (1993); James H. Nickens, M.D., 57 FR 59, 847 (1992); Roy E. Hardman, M.D., 57 FR 49, 195 (1992); Myong S. Yi, M.D., 54 FR 30, 618 (1989); Bobby Watts, M, D., 53 FR 11, 919 (1988).
Here, it is clear and undisputed that the Respondent currently is not authorized to handle controlled substances in Wisconsin. Likewise, since the respondent lacks state authority to handle controlled
substances, DEA lacks authority to continue his registration. Judge Bittner also properly granted the Government's motion for summary disposition. The parties did not dispute that the Respondent
was unauthorized to handle controlled substances in Wisconsin, the state in which he conducts his practice. Therefore, it is well-settled that when no question of fact is involved, a plenary, adversary
administrative proceeding involving evidence and cross-examination of witnesses is not obligatory. Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 FR at 51, 104; see also Philip E. Kirk, M.D., 48 FR 32, 887 (1983), aff'd sub nom Kirk V. Mullen, 749 F.2d 297 (6th Cir. 1984); Alfred Tennyson Smurthwaite, M.D., 43 FR 11, 873 (1978); NLRB v. International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, AFL-CIO, 549 F.2d 634 (9th Cir. 1977).
Accordingly, the Deputy Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, pursuant to the authority vested in him by 21 U.S.C. 823 and 824, and 28 CFR 0.100 (b) and 0.104, hereby orders that DEA Certificate of Registration AN7645229, previously issued to David R. Nahin, M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked, and any pending application for renewal of such registration is hereby denied. This order is effective August 29, 1996.

Dated: July 24, 1996.
Stephen H. Greene,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-19257 Filed 7-29-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M

ADVERTISIMENT

More LabCorp complaints & reviews

LabCorp - rude
Resolved
The complaint has been investigated and resolved to the customer’s satisfaction.
LabCorp - fraudulent billing
Resolved
The complaint has been investigated and resolved to the customer’s satisfaction.
LabCorp - credit card charge required for guaranteed services
Resolved
The complaint has been investigated and resolved to the customer’s satisfaction.
LabCorp - billing/insurance
Resolved
The complaint has been investigated and resolved to the customer’s satisfaction.
LabCorp - bad experience
Resolved
The complaint has been investigated and resolved to the customer’s satisfaction.
7 comments
Add a comment
A
Aug 15, 2022 7:10 am EDT

My baby girl was taken by cps for the same thing. Dr. David Nahim signing off on a test after 17 mts of clean hair and ua’s. The very last court date. (I thought she was coming home) A test with stuff I had never ever done and large amounts of it. I was tpr’d on the spot. I begged the judge to let me pay for a test right then and there because I knew they were lying. Didn’t even consider it. He knew what they had done! It makes me physically ill, what they put my child through and what I went through. What is wrong with these people?

F
Jan 31, 2022 11:55 pm EST

Hi, can you tell me more? I m in the same position where this dr is signing off on tests in a child case. Thanks

A
Feb 15, 2022 6:31 am EST
Verified customer This comment was posted by a verified customer. Learn more
Replying to comment of Flygirl110

Do you have any more information? I’m in the same position and I’m in TN.

A
Feb 15, 2022 6:32 am EST
Verified customer This comment was posted by a verified customer. Learn more
Replying to comment of Flygirl110

Hi, do you have anymore information on this? I’m going through the same thing here in TN.

View 0 more photos
N
Aug 18, 2021 9:22 pm EDT

Finally my research of this Dr is paying off. He is signing off on test that are ripping families apart I haven't seen my kids in 2 years because of this so mro not even reviewing the test and actually he supposedly was doing this out of Indianapolis Indiana sending test to a vacant building. I also ran a background check on him and was completely shocked I suggest everyone question everything. I looked him up and found this out two more mros they are using are Steven paschal and John tetrick. These drs are not reviewing anything and if parents do the research they would be shocked.
A broken mother because of these drs they need to be stopped.
From Texas
Rebecca bogard

A
Feb 15, 2022 6:33 am EST
Verified customer This comment was posted by a verified customer. Learn more

Did you have a case with this? I’m going through the same thing.

N
Feb 22, 2022 11:58 pm EST

I have a cps case because of these drs. They are no good. My email is alwaysrosie84@gmail.com

You can find me on Facebook Rebecca Nicole bogard for more information

ADVERTISIMENT

Learn how the rating is calculated

341 complaints
23 resolved 318 unresolved

LabCorp contacts

(added by reviewer)
Phone number
Address
1250 Chapel Hill Rd., South Carolina United States
Website
Category
ADVERTISIMENT