[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 157 (Monday, August 16, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49950-49951]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-20237]



[[Page 49950]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Robert Wayne Mosier, D.O.; Denial of Application

    On September 30, 2009, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office 
of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order 
to Show Cause to Robert Wayne Mosier, D.O. (Respondent), of Talihina, 
Oklahoma. The Show Cause Order proposed the denial of Respondent's 
application for a DEA Certificate of Registration, as a practitioner, 
on the ground that he is ``currently without authority to handle 
controlled substances or practice medicine in the State of Oklahoma, 
the state in which [he is] registered with DEA.'' Show Cause Order at 
1.
    More specifically, the Show Cause Order alleged that Respondent had 
possessed a DEA Certificate of Registration, BM5225289, which expired 
by its terms on January 31, 2009, and that because he did not file an 
application for renewal of his DEA registration until April 23, 2009, 
his renewal application ``is treated as a new application for DEA 
registration.'' Id. The Order further alleged that ``[a]s a result of 
actions by the Oklahoma State Board of Osteopathic Examiners and the 
Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs,'' Respondent lacked 
the authority to handle controlled substances or to practice medicine 
in Oklahoma Id. The Order further explained that Respondent had the 
right to request a hearing on the allegations or to submit a statement 
in lieu of a hearing, the procedures for doing so, and the consequences 
if he failed to do so. Id.
    On October 6, 2009, the Order to Show Cause was served on 
Respondent by certified mail as evidenced by the signed return receipt 
card. Since that time, neither Respondent, nor any one purporting to 
represent him, has requested a hearing. Because more than thirty days 
have passed since Respondent was served with the Show Cause Order, and 
Respondent has not requested a hearing (or submitted a written 
statement), I conclude that Respondent has waived his rights to do 
either. 21 CFR 1301.43(d). I therefore enter this Decision and Final 
Order based on relevant material contained in the record and make the 
following findings.

Findings

    Respondent was previously registered with DEA to dispense 
controlled substances in schedules II through V as a practitioner, and 
was assigned Certificate of Registration, BM5225289, which expired by 
its terms on January 31, 2009. Ex. H. Although the DEA mailed 
Respondent a renewal notice on December 10, 2008 and a delinquency 
notice on April 7, 2009, the Agency did not receive a renewal 
application from Respondent until April 23, 2009. Id.
    Respondent holds a license to practice osteopathic medicine in the 
State of Oklahoma. However, on June 18, 2009, the Oklahoma State Board 
of Osteopathic Examiners found Respondent to be in violation of various 
provisions of the Oklahoma Osteopathic Medicine Act and that ``in the 
interest of public safety,'' Respondent's license ``shall be suspended 
immediately'' and ``remain suspended until further order of the 
Board.'' Order of Suspension with Conditions 2-3, State Board of 
Osteopathic Examiners v. R. Wayne Mosier, D.O., No. 0712-0001 (June 18, 
2009).
    Respondent also held an Oklahoma Controlled Substance Registration. 
However, on February 10, 2009, the Oklahoma State Bureau of Narcotics 
and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD) issued an Order to Show Cause to Respondent 
as to why it should not revoke Respondent's state controlled substance 
registration. Order to Show Cause at 1 & 9, Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma 
State Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Control v. Robert Wayne 
Mosier, D.O., (No. SCH-2009-02). The Order alleged that, between 2007 
and 2008, four of Respondent's patients had died from lethal overdoses 
of controlled substances and that ``each of these patients had, not 
long before their death, received prescriptions for various controlled 
dangerous substances from Respondent.'' Id. at 4.
    The BNDD also alleged that Respondent had ``failed to guard against 
the diversion of controlled dangerous substances,'' that he ``dispensed 
controlled dangerous substances to patients without a legitimate 
medical need,'' that he treated individuals addicted to controlled 
substances for addiction without being licensed to provide a narcotic 
treatment program, that he self-prescribed controlled substances, that 
he failed to maintain accurate dispensing records, and that his office 
lacked the proper security controls to store controlled substances. Id. 
at 4-8.
    On April 7, 2009, following a proceeding before a state 
Administrative Law Judge, BNDD immediately revoked Respondent's state 
controlled substance registration. Final Order at 2, Oklahoma ex rel. 
Oklahoma State Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Control v. 
Robert Wayne Mosier, D.O. The BNDD Order provided that Respondent was 
further ``prohibited from making application for a[] [state] 
registration for a period of at least one (1) year.'' Id. A printout 
from the BNDD Web site dated January 13, 2010, indicates that 
Respondent had undergone disciplinary action and that the status of his 
registration is ``inactive.'' Ex. E.

Discussion

    DEA does not have statutory authority to grant or maintain a DEA 
registration if the applicant or registrant lacks authority to handle 
controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he is 
engaged in professional practice. See 21 U.S.C. 802(21) (defining the 
term ``practitioner'' as a person ``licensed, registered, or otherwise 
permitted, by the United States or the jurisdiction in which he 
practices * * * to distribute, dispense * * * [or] administer * * * a 
controlled substance''); id. Sec.  823(f) (``The Attorney General shall 
register practitioners * * * to dispense * * * controlled substances * 
* * if the applicant is authorized to dispense * * * controlled 
substances under the laws of the State in which he practices.''); id. 
Sec.  824(a)(3) (authorizing revocation ``upon a 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 the distribution[] or dispensing 
of controlled substances''). DEA has consistently held that holding 
authority under state law is a prerequisite for obtaining a 
registration under the CSA. See Worth S. Wilkinson, 71 FR 30173 (2006); 
Stephen J. Graham, 69 FR 11661 (2004); Dominick A. Ricci, 58 FR 51104 
(1993); Bobby Watts, 53 FR 11919 (1988).
    Moreover, the Agency has held that revocation is warranted (and 
denied applications) even in those instances where a practitioner's 
state license has only been suspended, and there is the possibility of 
reinstatement. See Bourne Pharmacy, 72 FR 18273, 18274 (2007); Alton E. 
Ingram, Jr., 69 FR 22562 (2004); Anne Lazar Thorn, 62 FR 12847 (1997) 
(``the controlling question is not whether a practitioner's license to 
practice medicine in the state is suspended or revoked; rather, it is 
whether the Respondent is currently authorized to handle controlled 
substances''). As Respondent clearly lacks authority to handle 
controlled substances under Oklahoma law, the State in which he has 
applied for registration, his application will be denied.

[[Page 49951]]

Order

    Pursuant to the authority invested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f), as 
well as by 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104, I hereby order that the 
application of Robert Wayne Mosier, M.D., for a DEA Certificate of 
Registration as a practitioner be, and it hereby is, denied. This order 
is effective immediately.

    Dated: July 30, 2010.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-20237 Filed 8-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P