[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 10, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13929-13931]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04837]



[[Page 13929]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. 19-21]


William S. Husel, D.O.; Decision and Order

    On April 9, 2019, the Assistant Administrator, Diversion Control 
Division, Drug Enforcement Administration (hereinafter, Government), 
issued an Order to Show Cause (hereinafter, OSC) to William S. Husel, 
D.O. (hereinafter, Respondent) of Columbus, Ohio. OSC, at 1. The OSC 
proposed the revocation of Respondent's Certificate of Registration No. 
FH4036667. It alleged that Respondent is without ``authority to handle 
controlled substances in the State of Ohio, the state in which 
[Respondent is] registered with the DEA.'' Id. at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 
824(a)(3)).
    Specifically, the OSC alleged that the State Medical Board of Ohio 
(hereinafter, Board) summarily suspended Respondent's certificate to 
practice osteopathic medicine and surgery on January 25, 2019. Id. at 
2.
    The OSC notified Respondent of the right to request a hearing on 
the allegations or to submit a written statement while waiving the 
right to a hearing, the procedures for electing each option, and the 
consequences for failing to elect either option. Id. (citing 21 CFR 
1301.43). The OSC also notified Respondent of the opportunity to submit 
a corrective action plan. OSC, at 1, 3 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(c)(2)(C)).
    Respondent, through his counsel, timely requested a hearing via an 
email dated April 30, 2019.\1\ Hearing Request, at 1. In his hearing 
request, Respondent admitted that his Ohio Medical License was 
summarily suspended on January 25, 2019, and stated that he was 
preparing for his hearing before the State Medical Board of Ohio. Id. 
He also stated that ``he ha[d] not prescribed any controlled substances 
while on suspension.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Hearing Request was filed with the Office of 
Administrative Law by email after 5 p.m. on April 30, 2019, 
therefore the ALJ deemed the filing date to be May 1, 2019. Briefing 
Order, at 1. Respondent's Hearing Request was also filed by U.S. 
Mail, received on May 9, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office of Administrative Law Judges (hereinafter, OALJ) put the 
matter on the docket and assigned it to Administrative Law Judge 
Charles Dorman (hereinafter, ALJ). The ALJ issued a briefing schedule 
to both parties on May 1, 2019, directing the Government ``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,'' and any motion for summary 
disposition, by May 15, 2019. Briefing Schedule for Lack of State 
Authority Allegations (hereinafter, Briefing Order), at 1. The ALJ 
directed that ``if the Government files a motion for summary 
disposition, Respondent's reply is due on May 29, 2019.'' Id. The ALJ 
also noted that Respondent's counsel's email address was included in 
Respondent's Hearing Request, and provided instructions in the event 
Respondent's counsel declined to participate in future electronic 
receipt of orders from the OALJ. Id. at 2.
    The Government timely complied with the Briefing Order by filing a 
Motion for Summary Disposition on May 15, 2019. Government's Motion for 
Summary Disposition (hereinafter, MSD). In its MSD, the Government 
stated that Respondent ``lacks authority to handle controlled 
substances in the State of Ohio, the jurisdiction where he is licensed 
to practice osteopathic medicine and where he is registered with DEA, 
because his osteopathic medical license is suspended,'' and therefore, 
he ``does not have state authority to prescribe, administer, or 
dispense controlled substances in the State of Ohio.'' Id. at 3. Thus, 
the Government contends, ``Respondent is not authorized to possess a 
DEA registration'' in Ohio. Id. In support of its assertion, the 
Government provided a copy of the Board's ``Entry of Order'' 
(hereinafter, Order) dated January 25, 2019, which ordered that 
``effective immediately,'' Respondent's ``certificate . . . to practice 
osteopathic medicine and surgery in the State of Ohio be summarily 
suspended,'' and that Respondent ``shall immediately cease the practice 
of osteopathic medicine and surgery in Ohio.'' MSD, Exhibit 
(hereinafter, EX) 2, at 7.
    The Government's MSD included the Board's certification that the 
Order and Notice 1, dated January 25, 2019, and Notice 2, dated 
February 13, 2019, are ``true and correct copies'' of the proceedings 
of the Board. MSD, EX2, at 1, 6.
    Respondent failed to file a response to the MSD by the filing 
deadline in the ALJ's Briefing Order, nor did he file a response by the 
date of the ALJ's recommended decision, and the ALJ deemed the 
Government's motion unopposed. Order Granting Summary Disposition and 
Recommended Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision 
(hereinafter, SD), at 4.
    The ALJ granted the MSD, finding that ```there is no factual 
dispute of substance''' and that the Government ``has provided 
`reliable and probative evidence' of `appropriate evidentiary quality' 
that Respondent lacks state authority to handle controlled substances 
in Ohio.'' SD, at 8. (Citations omitted). The ALJ also found that 
``summary disposition is additionally warranted because the Government 
carried its burden and [Respondent] failed to respond.'' Id.
    The ALJ recommended revocation of Respondent's registration because 
``the Government has presented sufficient evidence to establish that 
[Respondent] lacks state authority to dispense controlled substances in 
Ohio, the state in which [he] holds his DEA registration.'' Id. at 9.
    By letter dated June 24, 2019, the ALJ certified and transmitted 
the record to me for final Agency action. In that letter, the ALJ 
advised that neither party filed exceptions and that the time period to 
do so had expired.
    I issue this Decision and Order based on the entire record before 
me. 21 CFR 1301.43(e). I make the following findings of fact.

Findings of Fact

Respondent's DEA Registration

    On September 10, 2016, Respondent renewed DEA Certificate of 
Registration No. FH4036667, at the registered address of 793 West State 
Street, Columbus, Ohio. MSD, EX1 (Certification of Registration 
History), at 1. Pursuant to this registration, Respondent is authorized 
to dispense controlled substances in schedules II through V as a 
practitioner. Id. Respondent's registration expired on October 31, 
2019.\2\ Id. at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The fact that Respondent allowed his registration to expire 
during the pendency of an OSC does not impact my jurisdiction or 
prerogative under the Controlled Substances Act (hereinafter, CSA) 
to adjudicate the OSC to finality. Jeffrey D. Olsen, MD, 84 FR 
68,474 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Status of Respondent's State License

    On January 25, 2019, the Board issued an Order and Notice summarily 
suspending Respondent's certificate to practice osteopathic medicine 
and surgery in the State of Ohio, finding that there was ``clear and 
convincing evidence'' that Respondent violated Ohio law. MSD, EX2 at 7; 
see also MSD, EX2, at 9-11. In its Order, the Board found that 
Respondent's ``continued practice presents a danger of immediate and 
serious harm to the public.'' MSD, EX2, at 7. On the same date, the 
Board also issued a Notice of Summary Suspension and Opportunity for

[[Page 13930]]

Hearing (hereinafter, Notice) to Respondent, notifying him that his 
``certificate/license to practice osteopathic medicine and surgery in 
the State of Ohio is summarily suspended'' and that ``at this time [he 
is] no longer authorized to practice osteopathic medicine and surgery 
in Ohio.'' Id. at 9. In its Notice, the Board specifically alleged that 
Respondent's employer hospital terminated his employment ``after 
determining that the medical treatment [Respondent] provided was below 
the standard of care and jeopardized the safety of patients'' because 
``at least twenty-seven patients received doses of controlled 
substances that significantly exceeded the acceptable dose range and 
were at fatal levels.'' Id.
    The Notice alleged that Respondent's conduct constituted a `` 
`failure to maintain minimal standards applicable to the selection or 
administration of drugs' '' and `` `a departure from . . . minimal 
standards of care of similar practitioners under the same or similar 
circumstances,' '' and his actions ``were in bad faith, and/or outside 
the scope of [his] authority, and/or not in accordance with reasonable 
medical standards.'' Id. at 10 (quoting Ohio Rev. Code Ann. Sec. Sec.  
4731.22(B)(2) and (B)(6).
    The Notice also informed Respondent that he was entitled to a 
hearing on the Board's allegations. MSD, EX2, at 11. The Government 
also provided a copy of a second Notice of Opportunity for Hearing 
(hereinafter, Notice 2) issued by the Board on February 13, 2019, which 
contained additional allegations of violations of Ohio law and advised 
Respondent of his right to a hearing before the Board. Id. at 2-4. 
Respondent was ordered to ``immediately cease the practice of 
osteopathic medicine and surgery in Ohio.'' Id. at 7.
    According to Ohio's online records, of which I take official 
notice, Respondent's license is still suspended. \3\ https://elicense.ohio.gov/oh_verifylicense?firstName=&lastName=Husel&licenseNumber=&searchType=individual (last visited January 30, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Under the Administrative Procedure Act, an agency ``may take 
official notice of facts at any stage in a proceeding--even in the 
final decision.'' United States Department of Justice, Attorney 
General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act 80 (1947) (Wm. 
W. Gaunt & Sons, Inc., Reprint 1979). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 556(e), 
``[w]hen an agency decision rests on official notice of a material 
fact not appearing in the evidence in the record, a party is 
entitled, on timely request, to an opportunity to show the 
contrary.'' Accordingly, Respondent may dispute my finding by filing 
a properly supported motion for reconsideration within fifteen 
calendar days of the date of this Order. Any such motion shall be 
filed with the Office of the Administrator and a copy shall be 
served on the Government. In the event Respondent files a motion, 
the Government shall have fifteen calendar days to file a response. 
Any such motion and response may be filed and served by email 
([email protected]) or by mail to Office of the 
Administrator, Attn: ADDO, Drug Enforcement Administration, 8701 
Morrissette Drive, Springfield, VA 22152.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, I find that Respondent currently is not licensed to 
engage in the practice of medicine in Ohio, the state in which 
Respondent is registered with the DEA.

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 CSA 
``upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license or 
registration suspended . . . [or] revoked . . . by competent State 
authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . 
. dispensing of controlled substances.'' With respect to a 
practitioner, the DEA has also 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, MD, 76 FR 71,371 (2011), pet. 
for rev. denied, 481 Fed. Appx. 826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh 
Blanton, MD, 43 FR 27,616, 27,617 (1978).
    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 CSA, the 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. See, e.g., James L. Hooper, 76 
FR at 71,371-72; Sheran Arden Yeates, MD, 71 FR 39,130, 39,131 (2006); 
Dominick A. Ricci, MD, 58 FR 51,104, 51,105 (1993); Bobby Watts, MD, 53 
FR 11,919, 11,920 (1988); Frederick Marsh Blanton, 43 FR at 27,617.
    Under Ohio law, ``No person shall knowingly obtain, possess, or use 
a controlled substance or a controlled substance analog,'' except \4\ 
pursuant to a ``prescription issued by a licensed health professional 
authorized to prescribe drugs if the prescription was issued for a 
legitimate medical purpose.'' Ohio Rev. Code Ann. Sec. Sec.  
2925.11(A), (B)(1)(d) (West, Westlaw current through File 21 of the 
133rd General Assembly (2019-2020)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Other irrelevant exceptions omitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ohio law further states that a `` `[l]icensed health professional 
authorized to prescribe drugs' or a `prescriber' means an individual 
who is authorized by law to prescribe drugs or dangerous drugs . . . in 
the course of the individual's professional practice.'' Ohio Rev. Code 
Ann. Sec.  4729.01(I) (West, Westlaw current through Files 1 to 20 of 
the 133rd General Assembly (2019-2020)). The definition further 
provides a limited list of authorized prescribers, the relevant 
provision of which is ``[a] physician authorized under Chapter 4731[ ] 
of the Revised Code to practice medicine and surgery, osteopathic 
medicine and surgery, or podiatric medicine and surgery.'' Id. at Sec.  
4729.01(I)(4). In addition, the Ohio Uniform Controlled Substances Act 
permits ``[a] licensed health professional authorized to prescribe 
drugs, if acting in the course of professional practice, in accordance 
with the laws regulating the professional's practice'' to prescribe or 
administer schedule II, III, IV, and V controlled substances to 
patients. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. Sec.  3719.06(A)(1)(a)-(b) (West, Westlaw 
current through Files 1 to 20 of the 133rd General Assembly (2019-
2020)).
    Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Respondent 
currently lacks authority to practice medicine in Ohio. As already 
discussed, a physician is authorized by law to prescribe or administer 
drugs in Ohio only when authorized to practice medicine and surgery 
under Ohio law. Thus, because Respondent lacks authority to practice 
medicine in Ohio and, therefore, is not authorized to handle controlled 
substances in Ohio, Respondent is not eligible to maintain a DEA 
registration. Accordingly, I will order that Respondent's DEA 
registration be revoked.

[[Page 13931]]

Order

    Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 
U.S.C. 824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No. 
FH4036667 issued to William S. Husel, D.O. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 
0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f), I hereby 
deny any pending application of William S. Husel to renew or modify 
this registration, as well as any other applications of William S. 
Husel for an additional registration in Ohio. This Order is effective 
April 9, 2020.

    Dated: January 29, 2020.
Uttam Dhillon,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-04837 Filed 3-9-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4410-09-P