[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 242 (Monday, December 19, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77637-77638]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27479]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. 21-35]


Allan Alexander Rashford, M.D.; Decision and Order

    On September 23, 2021, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or 
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause and Immediate Suspension of 
Registration (OSC/ISO) to Allan Alexander Rashford, M.D. (Respondent) 
of Charleston, South Carolina.\1\ OSC/ISO, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Respondent holds a DEA Certificate of Registration no. 
AR1001306 at the registered address of 903 Saint Andrews Blvd. Suite 
B, Charleston, SC 29407-7194. OSC/ISO, at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A hearing was held before DEA Administrative Law Judge Paul E. 
Soeffing (the ALJ) who, on April 5, 2022, issued his Recommended 
Rulings, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision of the 
Administrative Law Judge (RD).\2\ Having reviewed the entire record, 
the Agency adopts and hereby incorporates by reference the entirety of 
the ALJ's rulings, credibility findings, findings of fact, conclusions 
of law, sanctions analysis, and recommended sanction in the RD and 
summarizes and expands upon portions thereof herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Neither party filed exceptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Findings of Fact

    Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f), 824(a)(4), the Government seeks 
revocation of Respondent's DEA registration because Respondent 
allegedly committed acts rendering his continued registration 
inconsistent with the public interest, including: (1) improperly 
prescribing controlled substances; (2) failing to maintain medical 
records; and (3) engaging in unlawful electronic prescribing practices. 
OSC/ISO, at 1.
    Respondent issued the controlled substance prescriptions at issue 
in this case to Patients W.G., P.L., T.E., D.P., N.R., and L.C. without 
maintaining any medical records. RD, at 28.\3\ According to the 
credible, unrebutted, expert testimony of Dr. Gene Kennedy, Respondent 
issued all of these controlled substance prescriptions outside the 
usual course of professional practice and beneath the applicable 
standard of care due to Respondent's lack of medical records. Id. at 28 
(citing Tr. 118-31, 344). The record showed that Respondent could not 
produce any records for these six patients. RD, at 28 (citing Tr. 249-
50; 323). In addition, Dr. Kennedy credibly testified that the 
controlled substance prescriptions for L.P. and P.B. were issued 
outside the usual course of professional practice and beneath the 
applicable standard of care because Respondent's partial medical 
records did not adequately support his prescribing. RD, at 29-31. 
Finally, the record established that Respondent permitted his wife and 
son

[[Page 77638]]

to access and use his eToken, password, and PIN to electronically 
submit prescriptions.\4\ Id. at 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The parties entered into 46 stipulations, all of which are 
incorporated into this Decision. RD, at 2-10. On January 29, 2020, 
Respondent entered into a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with DEA, 
which remains in effect for three years, and which prohibited 
Respondent from prescribing Schedule II controlled substances, 
required Respondent to maintain proper medical files on all patients 
to whom Respondent issued controlled substance prescriptions, and 
required Respondent to maintain medical records in a readily 
retrievable manner. The Agency agrees with the ALJ's consideration 
of the violations of the MOA in the Sanctions section. See RD, at 
n.12.
    \4\ Respondent testified regarding why he could not maintain and 
produce medical records and the purpose of his treatment of the 
patients at issue and their circumstances (including that he 
attempted to move patients away from controlled substance 
prescriptions for pain and stopped prescribing Schedule II 
controlled substances after DEA told him to stop in December 2019), 
but he does not dispute that he could not produce medical records 
documenting his prescribing. RD, at 27, 29, 30; Tr. 79-82; 240-331. 
Respondent did not dispute that he had entrusted his electronic 
credentials to his son and wife. Id. (citing Tr. 333-37).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

    The Government has the burden of proving that the requirements for 
revocation of a DEA registration in 21 U.S.C. 824(a) are satisfied. 21 
CFR 1301.44(e). Having reviewed the record and the ALJ's RD, the Agency 
agrees with the RD that the Government has proven by substantial 
evidence that Respondent committed acts which render his continued 
registration inconsistent with the public interest.
    The Agency agrees with the RD that the record established multiple 
instances where Respondent failed to comply with applicable federal and 
state law and dispensed controlled substances in a manner inconsistent 
with the public interest. The Agency finds that, based on the credible, 
unrebutted testimony of the Government's expert, Dr. Kennedy, the 
Government established that Respondent issued all of the prescriptions 
at issue in this case outside the usual course of professional practice 
and beneath the standard of care in violation of 21 CFR 1306.04(a) and 
in violation of several South Carolina laws.\5\ See RD, at 27-30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61-4.1002(a), 61-4.1103, 61-4.1204; 
S.C. Code Ann. 40-47-113(A), 44-53-360(h), 44-115-120; see RD, at 
27-28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the Agency agrees with the RD that the record 
established that Respondent improperly issued electronic controlled 
substance prescriptions by entrusting his secure credentials to his 
wife and son and allowing them to access and provide his PIN in the 
issuance of those prescriptions. Id. at 32. In so doing, Respondent 
violated 21 CFR 1311.125(c), 21 CFR 1311.135(a), and 21 CFR 
1311.102(a). See id. at 32-34.
    In sum, the Agency agrees with the RD that these factors militate 
strongly in favor of the Government's position that Respondent's 
continued registration is inconsistent with the public interest and, 
thus, that the Government established a prima facie case for 
revocation. RD, at 34.

III. Sanction

    Where, as here, the Government has established grounds to revoke 
Respondent's registration, the burden shifts to the respondent to show 
why he can be entrusted with the responsibility carried by a 
registration. Garret Howard Smith, M.D., 83 FR 18,882, 18,910 (2018). 
When a registrant has committed acts inconsistent with the public 
interest, he must both accept responsibility and demonstrate that he 
has undertaken corrective measures. Holiday CVS LLC dba CVS Pharmacy 
Nos 219 and 5195, 77 FR 62,316, 62,339 (2012).
    Here, the Agency adopts the rationale of the RD that, although 
Respondent freely admitted that he failed to keep records that were 
readily retrievable, he did not unequivocally accept responsibility for 
his misconduct; instead, he downplayed his misconduct and placed blamed 
on the actions of others. RD, at 34-38 (citing Tr. 246-57, 316-19, 323-
24). In addition, the record demonstrates that Respondent's violations 
of the law were not isolated occurrences, but took place over more than 
a year, involved multiple patients, and even occurred after the DEA had 
specifically notified Respondent of the violations and attempted to 
bring Respondent into compliance with an MOA, which Respondent then 
violated.
    Having reviewed the record in its entirety, the Agency finds that 
Respondent cannot be entrusted with a DEA registration and orders that 
his registration be revoked.

Order

    Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in the 
Administrator by 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4) and 21 U.S.C. 823(f), I hereby 
revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No. AR1001306 issued to Allan 
Alexander Rashford, M.D. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b), 21 
U.S.C. 824(a), and 21 U.S.C. 823(f), I hereby deny any pending 
application of Allan Alexander Rashford, M.D., to renew or modify this 
registration, as well as any other pending application of Allan 
Alexander Rashford, M.D., for registration in South Carolina. This 
Order is effective January 18, 2023.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on 
December 12, 2022, by Administrator Anne Milgram. That document with 
the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For 
administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of 
the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal 
Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the 
document in electronic format for publication, as an official document 
of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect 
of this document upon publication in the Federal Register.

Heather Achbach,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Drug Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 2022-27479 Filed 12-16-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P