[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 28 (Monday, February 11, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3251-3253]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-01849]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 19-2]
Paul Surinder Singh, D.O.; Decision And Order
On August 8, 2018, the Assistant Administrator, Diversion Control
Division, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an Order to
Show Cause to Paul Surinder Singh, D.O. (Respondent), of Tehachapi,
California. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of
Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration No. BS7367623 on the
ground that he has ``no state authority to handle controlled
substances.'' Order to Show Cause, at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).
For the same reason, the Order also proposed the denial of any of
Respondent's ``applications for renewal or modification of such
registration and any applications for any other DEA registrations.''
Id.
With respect to the Agency's jurisdiction, the Show Cause Order
alleged that Respondent is the holder of Certificate of Registration
No. BS7367623, pursuant to which he is authorized to dispense
controlled substances as a practitioner in schedules II through V, at
the registered address of 276 C South Mill Street, Tehachapi,
California. Id. The Order also alleged that this registration does not
expire until February 28, 2019. Id.
Regarding the substantive grounds for the proceeding, the Show
Cause Order alleged that on April 17, 2017, the Osteopathic Medical
Board of California (OMBC) ``adopted the Proposed Decision of an
Administrative Law Judge . . . recommending revocation of''
Respondent's ``Osteopathic Physician's License,'' effective on May 17,
2017. Id. As a result, the Order alleged that Respondent is ``without
authority to handle controlled substances in the State of California,
the [S]tate in which [he is] registered with DEA.'' Id. at 1-2. Based
on his ``lack of authority to [dispense] controlled substances in . . .
California,'' the Order asserted that ``DEA must revoke'' Respondent's
registration. Id. at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3); 21 CFR 1301.37(b)).
The Show Cause Order notified Respondent of (1) his right to
request a hearing on the allegations or to submit a written statement
in lieu of a hearing, (2) the procedure for electing either option, and
(3) the consequence for failing to elect either option. Id. (citing 21
CFR 1301.43). The Order also notified Respondent of his right to submit
a corrective action plan. Id. at 2-3 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(c)(2)(C)).
On October 15, 2018, Respondent filed a letter (dated October 9,
2018) indicating that the Show Cause Order was ``delivered to [him] by
DEA agents
[[Page 3252]]
on September 19, 2018'' and that he was ``requesting a hearing on the
subject matter of the revocation of [his] DEA license.'' Oct. 9, 2018
Letter from Respondent to Hearing Clerk. The matter was then placed on
the docket of the Office of Administrative Law Judges and assigned to
Administrative Law Judge Mark M. Dowd (ALJ). On October 16, 2018, the
ALJ issued an Order noting that ``[n]othing in the record indicates
when the [Show Cause Order] was served on Respondent besides
Respondent's own assertion of the date [when that Order] was personally
served on him.'' Order Directing the Filing of Evidence of Lack of
State Authority Allegation and Briefing Schedule, at 1-2. As a result,
the ALJ ordered the Government (1) to ``submit evidence showing when
the Respondent first received'' the Show Cause Order by October 19,
2018 and (2) to ``file evidence to support its allegation that
Respondent lacks state authority to handle controlled substances, or
any other grounds upon which it seeks summary disposition'' by October
23, 2018. Id. at 2. The ALJ also directed Respondent to file his
response to any summary disposition motion no later than October 30,
2018. Id.
On October 18, 2018, the Government filed its Motion for Summary
Disposition. In its Motion, the Government stated that ``Respondent was
personally served with the Order to Show Cause on September 19, 2018.''
Government's Motion for Summary Disposition (Government's Motion or
Govt. Mot.) at 1. In support of its position, the Government submitted
a Declaration signed by a Diversion Investigator (DI) assigned to DEA's
San Francisco Field Division. Government Exhibit (GX) 2 to Govt. Mot.
In that Declaration, the DI stated that he, along with the Diversion
Group Supervisor, traveled to Respondent's residence and personally
served him on September 19, 2018. Id. at 1.
With respect to the substantive grounds for its Motion, the
Government argued that Respondent currently lacks authority to handle
controlled substances in California because, on April 17, 2017, the
OMBC ``adopted the Proposed Decision of an Administrative Law Judge . .
. recommending revocation of Respondent's Osteopathic Physician's
License number 20A7851.'' Govt. Mot., at 3 (citing GX 3). The
Government noted that the OMBC's revocation of Respondent's license was
effective beginning on May 17, 2017. Id. The Government further argued
that, ``[a]bsent authority by the State of California to dispense
controlled substances, Respondent is not authorized to possess a DEA
registration in that state.'' Id. Lastly, the Government argued that
under Agency precedent, revocation is warranted even where a State has
temporarily suspended a practitioner's state authority with the
possibility of future reinstatement. Id. at 4 (citations omitted). As
support for its summary disposition request, the Government submitted,
inter alia, a certified copy of the OMBC's April 17, 2017 Decision
adopting the California Administrative Law Judge's Proposed Decision to
revoke Respondent's license, the March 21, 2017 Proposed Decision, and
the April 13, 2016 ``Accusation'' against Respondent that the OMBC
Executive Director filed with the OMBC. GX 3 to Govt. Mot.
After considering these pleadings, the ALJ issued an Order on
November 2, 2018 recommending that I find that there was no dispute
``over the fact that Respondent currently lacks state authority to
handle controlled substances in the State of California because the
[OMBC] has revoked his medical license.'' Order Granting the
Government's Motion for Summary Disposition, and Recommended Rulings,
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision of the
Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter ``Recommended Decision'' or
``R.D.''), at 6.\1\ As a result, the ALJ granted the Government's
motion for summary disposition and recommended that I revoke
Respondent's DEA registration. Id. at 7.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The ALJ issued his Recommended Decision after concluding
``that the Respondent has forfeited his right to respond to the
Government's allegations'' set forth in the Government's Motion
because he ``has not filed any reply to the Government's
allegations,'' ``has not submitted a request for an extension to
reply to the Government's allegations, and has had no further
communication with this tribunal apart from the submission of the
Request for Hearing.'' R.D., at 3.
\2\ After considering the Government's Motion, the ALJ also
found that ``Respondent's Request for Hearing was timely filed.''
R.D., at 2 n.1. I agree and adopt the ALJ's finding that Respondent
filed a timely hearing request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither party filed exceptions to the ALJ's Recommended Decision.
Thereafter, the record was forwarded to my Office for Final Agency
Action. Having reviewed the record, I find that Respondent is currently
without authority to handle controlled substances in California, the
State in which he holds his registration with the Agency, and thus he
is not entitled to maintain his DEA registration. I adopt the ALJ's
recommendation that I revoke Respondent's registration. I make the
following factual findings.
Findings of Fact
Respondent is the holder of DEA Certificate of Registration No.
BS7367623, pursuant to which he is authorized to dispense controlled
substances in schedules II through V as a practitioner at the
registered address of 276 C South Mill Street, Tehachapi, California.
GX 1 (Certification of Registration History) to Govt. Mot. This
registration does not expire until February 28, 2019. Id.
Respondent was also the holder of California Osteopathic
Physician's and Surgeon's License No. 20A7851, which was issued to him
by the OMBC. GX 3 to Govt. Mot., at 4. However, on April 17, 2017, the
OMBC issued its Decision adopting the March 21, 2017 Proposed Decision
of a California Administrative Law Judge revoking Respondent's medical
license ``together with all licensing rights appurtenant thereto.'' GX
3 to Govt. Mot., at 2, 11.\3\ The OMBC stated that its Decision ``shall
become effective on May 17, 2017.'' Id. at 2. There is no evidence in
the record that the OMBC ever issued a superseding order or decision
reinstituting Respondent's license.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In its March 21, 2017, Proposed Decision, the California ALJ
based his proposed decision to revoke Respondent's medical license
primarily on his findings of fact related to Respondent's own
admissions in connection with his federal felony conviction for mail
fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341. See GX 3 to Govt. Mot., at 4,
9. The California ALJ recited Respondent's admission in his plea
agreement that, in the course of committing his mail fraud scheme,
he ``knowingly obtained non-FDA approved copper IUDs [intrauterine
devices] by purchasing them on the internet[,] knowingly inserted
them into his patients[. . . and] failed to inform his patients that
he had inserted a non-FDA approved copper IUD.'' Id. at 4 (citations
omitted). The California ALJ also recited Respondent's admission
that he had ``billed at least 10 different health care benefit
programs for payment for the insertion of non-FDA approved copper
IUDs in his patients . . . representing that he inserted an FDA-
approved copper IUD when in fact he had not.'' Id. at 5. The
California ALJ also noted that the OMBC had ``previously disciplined
Respondent for his conduct arising out of the same general facts''
on November 15, 2014. Id. Pursuant to these findings, the California
ALJ concluded that Respondent violated sections 2234(e), 2236(a),
and 2261 of California's Business and Professions Code related to
unprofessional conduct and dishonest and corrupt acts. Id. at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, I find that Respondent currently does not possess a
license to practice medicine in the State of California, the State in
which he is registered with the DEA. See id.
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 of the
Controlled Substances Act (CSA), ``upon a finding that the registrant .
. . has had his State
[[Page 3253]]
license . . . suspended [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority
and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . .
dispensing of controlled substances.'' Also, DEA has long held 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); see
also Frederick Marsh Blanton, 43 FR 27616 (1978) (``State authorization
to dispense or otherwise handle controlled substances is a prerequisite
to the issuance and maintenance of a Federal controlled substances
registration.'').
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 practitioner possess state authority in order to be deemed a
practitioner under the Act, DEA has long held 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 engages in professional practice. 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); Blanton, 43 FR 27616 (1978).
Based on my finding that the OMBC revoked Respondent's Osteopathic
Physician's and Surgeon's License to practice medicine, I find that
Respondent is currently without authority to dispense controlled
substances under the laws of California, the State in which he is
registered. Accord Christopher D. Owens, M.D., 83 FR 13143, 13145 & n.1
(2018) (citing Cal. Health & Safety Code Sec. Sec. 11024, 11150,
11210, 11352, 2051, 2052). Here, there is no dispute over the material
fact that Respondent is no longer currently authorized to dispense
controlled substances in California, the State in which he is
registered. Accordingly, Respondent is not entitled to maintain his DEA
registration. I will therefore adopt the ALJ's recommendation that I
revoke Respondent's registration. R.D., at 7. I will also deny any
pending application to renew or to modify his registration, or any
pending application for any other DEA registration in California, as
requested in the Show Cause Order. Order to Show Cause, at 1.
Order
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and
824(a), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I order that DEA Certificate of
Registration No. BS7367623, issued to Paul Surinder Singh, D.O., be,
and it hereby is, revoked. I further order that any pending application
of Paul Surinder Singh to renew or modify the above registration, or
any pending application of Paul Surinder Singh for any other DEA
registration in the State of California, be, and it hereby is, denied.
This Order is effective March 13, 2019.
Dated: January 17, 2019.
Uttam Dhillon,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019-01849 Filed 2-8-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P