[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 22 (Friday, February 2, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5082-5083]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-1711]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Sunil Bhasin, M.D.; Revocation of Registration

    On August 4, 2005, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to 
Show Cause to Sunil Bhasin, M.D. (Respondent), of San Bernardino, CA. 
The Show Cause Order proposed to revoke Respondent's Certificate of 
Registration, BB2195116, as a practitioner, on the ground that 
Respondent had surrendered his California medical license, and was 
therefore without authority to handle controlled substances in the 
state where he practiced medicine. Show Cause Order at 1. The Show 
Cause Order further notified Respondent of his right to a hearing. Id. 
at 2.
    The Show Cause Order was served by certified mail, return receipt 
requested. On September 2, 2005, Respondent acknowledged receipt of the 
Show Cause Order as demonstrated by the signed return receipt card 
which is contained in the investigative file.
    In a letter dated September 5, 2005, Respondent wrote the Deputy 
Assistant Administrator asserting that he had rejected the Medical 
Board of California's settlement stipulation. Respondent further 
asserted that the stipulation was illegal because its terms were 
illusory, fraudulent and unconscionable and that he was litigating 
these issues in federal district court.
    On September 26, 2005, the Government filed a request with the 
Office of Administrative Law Judges to docket the matter for a hearing. 
While the Government noted that Respondent ``did not specifically 
request a hearing,'' it expressed the view that the case required an 
on-the-record ``factual determination of the licensing issue'' before 
the case was transmitted to me for final agency action. Govt. Req. to 
Docket Matter for Hearing at 1.
    Simultaneously, the Government moved for summary disposition. The 
basis of the Government's motion was that a Diversion Investigator (DI) 
would testify that she had received documents from the Medical Board of 
California (MBC) which showed that Respondent had surrendered his state 
license on September 27, 2004, that the MBC had adopted the surrender 
stipulation on December 6, 2004, and that the MBC Web site indicated 
that Respondent's license had been surrendered. Id. at 1-2. Attached to 
the motion were documents supporting each of the Government's 
contentions.
    The matter was assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Mary Ellen 
Bittner. On October 7, 2005, the ALJ issued a Memorandum to Parties 
(Memo 1). In Memo 1, the ALJ offered Respondent the opportunity to 
respond to the Government's request to docket the matter for hearing no 
later than October 31, 2005. Memo 1, at 2.
    A copy of Memo 1 was sent to Respondent by certified mail. The 
mailing, however, was returned unclaimed. Thereafter, the ALJ issued a 
new Memorandum to Parties which offered Respondent the opportunity to 
respond to the Government's request by December 19, 2005. Memorandum to 
Parties 1 (Nov. 28, 2005) (Memo 2). The ALJ further directed that Memo 
2 be sent to Respondent by both registered mail with restricted 
delivery and first class mail. See id. Again, Respondent did not 
respond. See Memorandum to Parties 2 (Mar. 24, 2006) (Memo 3).
    Thereafter, on January 19, 2006, the Government moved to terminate 
the proceedings. Motion to Terminate Proceedings 1. The Government also 
requested that the ALJ find that Respondent had waived his right to a 
hearing. Id.
    On March 24, 2006, the ALJ issued a further Memorandum to Parties 
(Memo 3). In Memo 3, the ALJ offered Respondent the opportunity to 
respond to the Government's motion to terminate by April 13, 2006. Memo 
3, at 2. When once again, Respondent failed to respond, the ALJ granted 
the Government's motion and ordered that the proceedings be terminated. 
See Order Terminating Proceedings 2. In her order, the ALJ also found 
that Respondent had failed to request a hearing and had waived his 
right to a hearing. See id.
    The investigative file was then forwarded to me for final agency 
action. I adopt the ALJ's finding that Respondent has waived his right 
to a hearing. I therefore enter this final order without a hearing 
based on information contained in the investigative file.

[[Page 5083]]

Findings

    Respondent holds DEA Certificate of Registration, BB2195116, which 
authorizes him to act as a practitioner under the Controlled Substances 
Act. Respondent's registered location is 909 N. D Street, San 
Bernardino, CA. Respondent's registration does not expire until July 
31, 2007.
    Respondent was also the holder of a Physician and Surgeon's license 
(G67327) issued by the Medical Board of California. According to the 
official records of the Medical Board (which were checked on December 
18, 2006), Respondent surrendered his license with an effective date of 
December 16, 2004. Moreover, Respondent has submitted no evidence to 
this Agency showing that the State's order has been vacated or that he 
has been granted a new license. Respondent therefore lacks authority 
under California law to practice medicine and handle controlled 
substances.

Discussion

    Under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), a practitioner must be 
currently authorized to handle controlled substances in ``the 
jurisdiction in which he practices'' in order to maintain a DEA 
registration. See 21 U.S.C. 802(21) (``[t]he term `practitioner' means 
a physician * * * licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, by * * 
* the jurisdiction in which he practices * * * to distribute, dispense, 
[or] administer * * * a controlled substance in the course of 
professional practice''). See also id. sec. 823(f) (``The Attorney 
General shall register practitioners * * * if the applicant is 
authorized to dispense * * *controlled substances under the laws of the 
State in which he practices.''). DEA has held repeatedly that the CSA 
requires the revocation of a registration issued to a practitioner 
whose state license has been suspended or revoked. See Sheran Arden 
Yeates, 71 FR 39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick A. Ricci, 58 FR 51104, 
51105 (1993); Bobby Watts, 53 FR 11919, 11920 (1988). See also 21 
U.S.C. 824(a)(3)(authorizing the revocation of a registration ``upon a 
finding that the registrant * * * has had his State license or 
registration suspended [or] revoked * * * and is no longer authorized 
by State law to engage in the * * * distribution [or] dispensing of 
controlled substances'').
    Following service of the Show Cause Order, Respondent submitted a 
letter asserting that he had rejected the Medical Board's settlement 
stipulation. Respondent also contended that the stipulation was illegal 
because its terms were illusory, fraudulent and unconscionable.
    As found above, the official records of the Medical Board of 
California indicate that Respondent does not hold a current state 
medical license and therefore is without authority to handle controlled 
substances in the State where he is registered with DEA. As for 
Respondent's conclusory assertions regarding the illegality of the 
stipulation, DEA precedents hold that a registrant can not collaterally 
attack the results of a state criminal or administrative proceeding in 
a proceeding under section 304 of the CSA. See Shahid Musud Siddiqui, 
61 FR 14818, 14818-19 (1996); Robert A. Leslie, 60 FR 14004, 14005 
(1995). Thus, even if Respondent had submitted evidence establishing 
the illegality of the stipulation, a DEA Show Cause Proceeding is not 
the proper forum to litigate the issue. Because Respondent lacks 
authority under California law to handle controlled substances, he is 
not entitled to maintain his DEA registration.

Order

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 
823(f) & 824(a), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b) & 0.104, I hereby order 
that DEA Certificate of Registration, BB2195116, issued to Sunil 
Bhasin, M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. I further order that any 
pending applications for renewal or modification of such registration 
be, and they hereby are, denied. This order is effective March 5, 2007.

    Dated: January 26, 2007.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Deputy Administrator.
 [FR Doc. E7-1711 Filed 2-1-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P