[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 23 (Thursday, February 4, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6043-6044]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02130]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Louis Watson, M.D.; Decision and Order

    On July 9, 2015, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an 
Order to Show Cause to Louis Watson, M.D. (Respondent). The Show Cause 
Order proposed the revocation of Respondent's DEA Certificate of 
Registration FW2729804, and the denial of any pending application to 
renew or modify the registration, on ground that he ``do[es] not have 
authority to practice medicine or handle controlled substances in 
California, the state in which he is registered with the DEA.'' Show 
Cause Order, at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a)(3)).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Show Cause Order also proposed the denial of any other 
pending application. Show Cause Order, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Show Cause Order alleged that Respondent is registered with the 
DEA as a practitioner, pursuant to which he is authorized to dispense 
controlled substances in Schedules II through V, at the registered 
address of 99 N. San Antonio Ave., #140, Upland, California. Id. The 
Order also alleged that Respondent's registration does not expire until 
May 31, 2017. Id.
    The Show Cause Order further alleged that effective September 12, 
2014, the Medical Board of California (MBC) revoked Respondent's 
California Physician's and Surgeon's Certificate, based on the 
recommendation of a state Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who had 
conducted a hearing. Id. The Show Cause Order thus alleged that 
Respondent is currently ``without authority to handle controlled 
substances in California, the state in which [he is] registered with 
the'' Agency, and that ``DEA must revoke [his] registration.'' Id. 
(citing 21 U.S.C. 802(21), 823(f), 824(a)(3)).
    The Show Cause Order also notified Respondent of his right to 
request a hearing on the allegations or to submit a written statement 
in lieu of a hearing, the procedure for electing either option, and the 
consequence of failing to elect either option. Id. at 2 (citing 21 CFR 
1301.43). The Show Cause Order further explained that ``[m]atters are 
deemed filed upon receipt by the Hearing Clerk.'' Id.
    On July 15, 2015, DEA Diversion Investigators (DIs) went to a 
location in Claremont, California which they believed to be 
Respondent's residence. GX 3. The DI verified that the location was 
Respondent's address with a neighbor and a pool maintenance employee. 
Id. The DI then left the Show Cause Order ``on his front door.'' Id; 
see also GX 6, at 11-12 (Declaration of DI).
    Thereafter, Respondent submitted a request for hearing to the DEA 
Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ). While Respondent's request 
was dated August 9, 2015, it was not received by the OALJ until August 
24, 2015. GX4.
    In his Hearing Request, Respondent listed the name and address of 
the attorney who was representing him in a state court challenge to the 
MBC's order, thus suggesting that the attorney was representing him in 
this matter. Id. Thereafter, the Chief Administrative Law Judge (CALJ) 
issued an order directing the Government to file evidence to support 
its allegation that Respondent lacks state authority to handle 
controlled substances as well as any motion for summary disposition 
based on this ground no later than September 8, 2015; the order also 
directed that if the Government filed such a motion, Respondent was to 
file his response no later than September 22, 2015. GX 5, at 1-2. In 
his order, the CALJ also noted that although Respondent's Hearing 
Request listed the attorney retained to represent his appeal of the 
decision of the California Medical Board, there was no indication that 
this attorney was also representing him in the instant proceeding, and 
thus Respondent's hearing request was construed to be ``a pro se 
request.'' Id. A copy of the CALJ's order was mailed postage pre-paid 
to Respondent at 2058 N. Mills Avenue #142, Claremont, California, the 
address listed on the envelope containing Respondent's Hearing Request. 
GX 9, at 2; see also GX 5, at 2.
    Thereafter, the Government filed a motion requesting that the CALJ 
deny Respondent's request for a hearing on the ground that it was not 
timely filed pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(a), which requires the filing 
of a written request for hearing ``within 30 days after the date of 
receipt of the order to show cause.'' GX 6, at 1 (Motion to Preclude 
Response to the Order to Show Cause). Therein, the Government argued 
that Respondent's hearing request was filed 40 days after the date of 
service of the Order to Show Cause, and that Respondent had not shown 
good cause for the untimely filing. The Government thus argued that 
Respondent had waived his right to a hearing and that the CALJ should 
issue an order denying his hearing request and forwarding the file to 
the Administrator for a final decision. Id. at 3.
    On the same date, the Government also filed a Motion for Summary 
Disposition. Therein, the Government requested that the CALJ ``issue a 
Recommended Decision to summarily revoke'' Respondent's DEA 
registration on the ground that he lacks state authority to dispense 
controlled substances in California, the State in which he hold his 
registration. GX 7, at 1-2. As support for its motion, the Government 
submitted copies of the MBC's Decision and the state ALJ's

[[Page 6044]]

Proposed Decision. GX 7, at Attachments 2 and 3.
    The CALJ then issued a second Order directing Respondent to respond 
to the Government's Motion to Preclude by September 22, 2015, the same 
due date for Respondent's reply, if any, to the Government's Motion for 
Summary Disposition. GX 8. This order was also sent to Respondent's 
address at 2058 N. Mills Avenue, #142, Claremont, California. Id. at 2.
    On September 24, the CALJ issued a Notice of Re-Service. GX 10. 
Therein, the CALJ explained the all of his prior orders had been sent 
to Respondent at the return address listed on the envelope the latter 
had used to mail his Hearing Request to the OALJ. The CALJ further 
noted that this address was different from the address the Government 
had used to serve Respondent with the Order to Show Cause and its 
motions. Thus, to ensure Respondent received sufficient notice of the 
response deadlines to the Government's motions, the CALJ re-sent his 
orders to the address of Respondent's residence and extended the time 
permitted to respond to the Government's motions.\2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In his Order, the CALJ also noted that his staff had 
contacted by telephone the attorney listed by Respondent in his 
Hearing Request to determine the attorney's status because he had 
not submitted any filings. GX 10, note 2. According to the CALJ, the 
attorney stated that he ``was not currently, and has never been, 
[Respondent's] counsel in this matter''; the attorney also stated 
that upon his receipt of the Government's motions he had called 
Respondent and clarified to him that he was not representing him in 
this matter. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 7, 2015, the CALJ, having received no response from 
Respondent to either motion, granted the Government's motion to 
terminate the proceedings, finding that Respondent's request for a 
hearing was not timely filed and that he had neither sought an 
extension nor offered an explanation for the untimeliness of his 
hearing request. GX 9, at 3. The CALJ also denied the Government's 
Motion for Summary Disposition as moot. Id at 4.
    Thereafter, the Government submitted its Request for Final Agency 
Action to this Office. The Government supported its request with 
various exhibits, including the Proposed Decision of the MBC's ALJ and 
the MBC's Decision.
    Based on the record, I find that Respondent's Hearing Request was 
untimely and that he has failed to demonstrate good cause to excuse his 
untimeliness. 21 CFR 1301.43(d). Accordingly, I find that Respondent 
has waived his right to be heard on the matters of fact and law at 
issue and issue this Decision and Order based on the record submitted 
by the Government. I make the following findings of fact.
    Respondent is a physician authorized to handle controlled 
substances in schedules II through V at the registered address of 99 N. 
San Antonio Ave., #140, Upland, California. GX 2. His registration does 
not expire until May 31, 2017. Id.
    On August 13, 2014, the MBC issued an order adopting the Proposed 
Decision of a state ALJ and ordered the revocation of Respondent's 
Physician's and Surgeon's License to practice medicine in the State of 
California, effective September 12, 2014. GX 7, at 9. Based on a search 
of the MBC's license verification Web page, Respondent's Physician's 
and Surgeon's license remains revoked. See www.breeze.ca.gov (accessed 
January 14, 2016).

Discussion

    Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized 
to suspend or revoke a registration issued under section 823, ``upon a 
finding that the Registrant . . . has had his State license . . . 
suspended [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no 
longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of 
controlled substances.'' Moreover, DEA has held repeatedly that the 
possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the 
laws of the State in which a practitioner engages in professional 
practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a 
practitioner's registration. See, e.g., James L. Hooper, 76 FR 71371 
(2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 Fed Appx. 826 (4th Cir. 2012).
    This rule derives from the text of two provisions of the CSA. 
First, Congress defined ``the term `practitioner' [to] mean[ ] a . . . 
physician . . . or other person 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.'' 21 U.S.C. 802(21). Second, in 
setting the requirements for obtaining a practitioner's registration, 
Congress directed that ``[t]he Attorney General shall register 
practitioners . . . if the applicant is authorized to dispense . . . 
controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he 
practices.'' 21 U.S.C. 823(f). Because Congress has clearly mandated 
that a physician possess state authority in order to be deemed a 
practitioner under the Act, DEA has held repeatedly that revocation of 
a practitioner's registration is the appropriate sanction whenever he 
is no longer authorized to dispense controlled substances under the 
laws of the State in which he practices medicine. See, e.g., Calvin 
Ramsey, 76 FR 20034, 20036 (2011); Sheran Arden Yeates, M.D., 71 FR 
39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick A. Ricci, 58 FR 51104, 51105 (1993); 
Bobby Watts, 53 FR 11919, 11920 (1988); see also Hooper v. Holder, 481 
Fed. Appx. at 828.
    Based on the revocation of his California Physician's and Surgeon's 
Certificate, I find that Respondent currently lacks authority to 
dispense controlled substances in California, the State in which he 
holds his DEA registration. Accordingly, I will order that his 
registration be revoked and that any pending applications be denied.

Order

    Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 
824(a), as well as 21 CFR 0.100(b), I order that DEA Certificate of 
Registration FW2729804, issued to Louis Watson, M.D., be, and it hereby 
is, revoked. I further order that any pending application of Louis 
Watson, M.D., to renew or modify his registration, as well as any other 
pending application be, and it hereby is, denied. This Order is 
effective March 7, 2016.

    Dated: January 18, 2016.
Chuck Rosenberg,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-02130 Filed 2-3-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P