[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 60 (Wednesday, March 31, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16784-16786]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-06584]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. 21-4]


Roozbeh Badii, M.D.; Decision and Order

    On October 15, 2020, the Assistant Administrator, Diversion Control 
Division, Drug Enforcement Administration (hereinafter, DEA or 
Government), issued an Order to Show Cause (hereinafter, OSC) to 
Roozbeh Badii, M.D. (hereinafter, Respondent) of McLean, Virginia. OSC, 
at 1. The OSC proposed the revocation of Respondent's Certificate of 
Registration No. FB0526307. It alleged that Respondent is without 
``authority to handle controlled substances in the State of Virginia, 
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 Virginia Department of 
Health Professions (hereinafter, VDHP) issued an Order of Mandatory 
Suspension on May 12, 2020. OSC, at 2. This Order, according to the 
OSC, immediately suspended Respondent's Virginia state medical license. 
Id. ``The VDHP ruling was issued following its finding, inter alia, of 
a prior ruling by the Maryland State Board of Physicians suspending 
[Respondent's] medical license in that state.'' Id.
    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 3. (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(c)(2)(C)).
    By letter dated November 19, 2020, Respondent timely requested a 
hearing.\1\ Hearing Request, at 1. According to the Hearing Request, 
Respondent's Virginia medical license was suspended because the board 
of medicine in the state of Maryland believed that Dr. Badii practiced 
medicine while being impaired psychologically and the state of 
Virginia, ``simply rubber stamped the findings of the state of 
Maryland.'' Id. Respondent's Hearing Request also claimed that ``other 
states do not consider him currently impaired in any capacity,'' and 
that Respondent wanted the opportunity to ``prove that he is mentally 
healthy and no current threat to his patients.'' Hearing Request, at 1 
and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Hearing Request was filed on November 20, 2020. Order 
and Briefing Schedule, dated November 23, 2020, at 1. I find that 
the Government's service of the OSC on October 26, 2020, was 
adequate and that the Hearing Request was timely filed on November 
20, 2020. See also Recommended Decision, at n.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office of Administrative Law Judges put the matter on the 
docket and assigned it to Chief Administrative Law Judge John J. 
Mulrooney II (hereinafter, the Chief ALJ). The Chief ALJ issued an 
Order and Briefing Schedule dated November 23, 2020. The Government 
timely complied with the Briefing Schedule by filing a Motion for 
Summary Disposition (hereinafter, MSD) on December 2, 2020. Order

[[Page 16785]]

Granting Summary Disposition and Recommended Rulings, Findings of Fact, 
Conclusions of Law, and Decision dated December 15, 2020 (hereinafter, 
Recommended Decision or RD), at 2. In its motion, the Government stated 
that Respondent lacks authority to handle controlled substances in 
Virginia, the state in which he is registered with the DEA and argued 
that, therefore, DEA must revoke his registration. MSD, at 1-2. The 
Respondent filed his response, ``Respondent's Reply Brief'' 
(hereinafter, Respondent's Reply), on December 14, 2020, in which he 
stated that ``[i]n the states where he has no medical license, he is 
not allowed to prescribe medications to patients in those states. This 
would include Maryland and Virginia.'' Reply Brief, at 3. Therefore, he 
argued that DEA permit him to ``transfer the DEA application process to 
California,'' where he has an active medical license. Id.
    The Chief ALJ granted the Government MSD finding that ``the 
Government has shown that the Respondent does not currently have 
authority to practice medicine in Virginia,'' and that because ``the 
Respondent does not have authority as a practitioner in Virginia, there 
is no other fact of consequence for this tribunal to decide in order to 
determine whether or not he is entitled to hold a [Certificate of 
Registration].'' RD, at 5. The Chief ALJ recommended that Respondent's 
DEA Certificate of Registration be revoked based on his lack of state 
authority. RD, at 6. By letter dated January 12, 2021, the Chief ALJ 
certified and transmitted the record to me for final Agency action. In 
that letter, the Chief ALJ advised that neither party filed exceptions.
    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

    Respondent is registered with DEA under DEA Certification of 
Registration number FB0526307 at the registered address of 6193 Adeline 
Court, McLean, Virginia 22101. MSD, at Exhibit 1. Pursuant to this 
registration, Respondent is authorized to dispense controlled 
substances in schedules II through V as a practitioner. Id. 
Respondent's registration ``is in an active pending status until the 
resolution of administrative proceedings.'' MSD, Exhibit 2 
(Certification of Registration History).

The Status of Respondent's State License

    On May 12, 2020, the VDHP issued an Order of Mandatory Suspension. 
Id. The VDHP ruling was issued following its finding of a prior ruling 
by the Maryland State Board of Physicians suspending Respondent's 
medical license in that state. MSD Exhibit 3 (VDHP Order of Mandatory 
Suspension).
    According to Virginia's online records, of which I take official 
notice, Respondent's license is still suspended.\2\ Virginia Department 
of Health Professions License Lookup, https://dhp.virginiainteractive.org/Lookup (last visited date of signature of 
this Order). Virginia's online records show that Respondent's medical 
license remains suspended. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 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 of findings of fact 
within fifteen calendar days of the date of this Order. Any such 
motion and response shall be filed and served by email to the other 
party and to Office of the Administrator, Drug Enforcement 
Administration at [email protected].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, I find that Respondent currently is neither licensed 
to engage in the practice of medicine in Virginia, 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, M.D., 76 FR 71,371 (2011), 
pet. for rev. denied, 481 F. App'x 826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh 
Blanton, M.D., 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, M.D., 71 FR 39,130, 39,131 
(2006); Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 FR 51,104, 51,105 (1993); Bobby 
Watts, M.D., 53 FR 11,919, 11,920 (1988); Frederick Marsh Blanton, 43 
FR at 27,617.
    Respondent argued that because he holds an active medical license 
in California, he should be able to transfer his DEA registration in 
Virginia to that state and avoid revocation. I agree with the Chief ALJ 
that ``as has been long established by Agency precedent, state 
licensure in a state other than a respondent's COR registration state 
is irrelevant to a DEA enforcement proceeding.'' RD, at 4 (citing Craig 
K. Alhanati, D.D.S., 62 FR 32,658, 32,658 (1997)).
    Respondent is no longer currently authorized to dispense controlled 
substances in the Commonwealth of Virginia, the state in which he is 
registered. Specifically, the Virginia
    Board of Medicine's decision to suspend Respondent's medical 
license also means that Respondent is currently without authority to 
dispense controlled substances under the laws of Virginia. See, e.g., 
Va. Code Ann. Sec. Sec.  54.1-2409.1 (2021) (felony to prescribe 
controlled substances without a current valid license); 54.1-2900 
(2021); 54.1-3401 (2021).
    Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Respondent 
currently lacks authority to practice medicine in Virginia. As already 
discussed, a physician must be a licensed practitioner to dispense a 
controlled

[[Page 16786]]

substance in Virginia. Thus, because Respondent lacks authority to 
practice medicine in Virginia and, therefore, is not authorized to 
handle controlled substances in Virginia, Respondent is not eligible to 
maintain a DEA registration. Accordingly, I will order that 
Respondent's DEA registration be revoked.

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. 
FB0526307 issued to Roozbeh Badii. 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 Roozbeh Badii to renew or modify this 
registration, as well as any other application of Roozbeh Badii, for 
additional registration in Virginia. This Order is effective April 30, 
2021.

D. Christopher Evans,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2021-06584 Filed 3-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P