[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 25 (Friday, February 7, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9166-9167]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-02342]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Massoud Amini, M.D.; Decision and Order
On February 23, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Massoud Amini, M.D.,
of Woodland Hills, California. (Registrant). Request for Final Agency
Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 1, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed the
revocation of Registrant's DEA Certificate of Registration No.
BA6612142, alleging that Registrant's registration should be revoked
because Registrant is ``currently without authority to handle
controlled substances in California, the state in which [he is]
registered with DEA.'' Id. at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).
The OSC notified Registrant of his right to file with DEA a written
request for hearing, and that if he failed to file such a request, he
would be deemed to have waived his right to a hearing and be in
default. Id. (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). Here, Registrant did not request
a hearing. RFAA, at 2.\1\ ``A default, unless excused, shall be deemed
to constitute a waiver of the [registrant's] right to a hearing and an
admission of the factual allegations of the [OSC].'' 21 CFR 1301.43(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on the Government's submissions in its RFAA dated
April 18, 2024, the Agency finds that service of the OSC on
Registrant was adequate. Specifically, the Declaration from a DEA
Diversion Investigator (DI) indicates that on February 29, 2024, the
DI successfully served the OSC via email to Registrant's registered
email address, as the DI's email was not returned undeliverable.
RFAAX 2, at 2; Mohammed S. Aljanaby, M.D., 82 FR 34552, 34552 (2017)
(finding that service by email satisfies due process where the email
is not returned as undeliverable and other methods have been
unsuccessful).
The DI made several other attempts to serve Registrant with the
OSC, but they were unsucessful. On February 27, 2024, the DI
attempted personal service at Registrant's last known forwarding
address. RFAAX 2, at 2. The DI left a copy of the OSC at the address
and asked the current residents to give the documents to Registrant.
Id. Also on this date, the DI called and texted Registrant via a
telephone number provided by the current residents and received no
response. Id. On February 29, 2024, the DI attempted to contact
Registrant by his registered phone number and left her contact
information with an acquaintance of Registrant who answered the
phone. Id. at 2-3. On March 1, 2024, the DI sent the OSC via
certified mail to four addresses associated with Registrant,
including Registrant's registered address. Id. at 3, Attachment C.
According to the DI, all four mailings were returned unable to
forward. Id. at 3. The DI also contacted the Medical Board of
California in attempting service, but the Board was unable to
provide a current address. Id. at 3.
In sum, the Agency finds that Registrant was successfully served
the OSC by email and the DI's efforts to serve Registrant by other
means were `` `reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances,
to apprise [Registrant] of the pendency of the action.' '' Jones v.
Flowers, 547 U.S. 220, 226 (2006) (quoting Mullane v. Central
Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950)). Therefore, due
process notice requirements have been satisfied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, ``[i]n the event that a registrant . . . is deemed to be
in default . . . DEA may then file a request for final agency action
with the Administrator, along with a record to support its request. In
such circumstances, the Administrator may enter a default final order
pursuant to [21 CFR] Sec. 1316.67.'' Id. Sec. 1301.43(f)(1). Here,
the Government has requested final agency action based on Registrant's
default pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(c), (f), 1301.46. RFAA, at 1; see
also 21 CFR 1316.67.
[[Page 9167]]
I. Findings of Fact
The Agency finds that, in light of Registrant's default, the
factual allegations in the OSC are admitted. According to the OSC,
effective January 12, 2024, the Medical Board of California revoked
Registrant's California medical license. RFAAX 1, at 2. According to
California's online records, of which the Agency takes official notice,
Registrant's California medical license remains revoked.\2\ California
DCA License Search, https://search.dca.ca.gov/ (last visited date of
signature of this Order). Accordingly, the Agency finds that Registrant
is not licensed to practice medicine in California, the state in which
he is registered with DEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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, Registrant may dispute the Agency's 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].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Discussion
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized
to suspend or revoke a registration issued under 21 U.S.C. 823 ``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, 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, D.O., 76 FR 71371, 71372 (2011), pet. for
rev. denied, 481 F. App'x 826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh Blanton,
D.O., 43 FR 27616, 27617 (1978).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ This rule derives from the text of two provisions of the
Controlled Substances Act (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(g)(1). Because Congress has clearly mandated that a
practitioner possess state authority in order to be deemed a
practitioner under the CSA, 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 71371, 71372; Sheran Arden Yeates,
D.O., 71 FR 39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick A. Ricci, D.O., 58 FR
51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby Watts, D.O., 53 FR 11919, 11920 (1988);
Frederick Marsh Blanton, 43 FR 27617.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to California statute, ``dispense'' means ``to deliver a
controlled substance to an ultimate user or research subject by or
pursuant to the lawful order of a practitioner, including the
prescribing, furnishing, packaging, labeling, or compounding necessary
to prepare the substance for that delivery.'' Cal. Health & Safety Code
section 11010 (West 2024). Furthermore, a ``practitioner'' means a
person ``licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, to distribute,
dispense, conduct research with respect to, or administer, a controlled
substance in the course of professional practice or research in [the]
state.'' Id. section 11026(c).
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant
currently lacks authority to practice medicine in California. As
discussed above, a physician must be a licensed practitioner to
dispense a controlled substance in California. Thus, because Registrant
currently lacks authority to practice medicine in California and,
therefore, is not currently authorized to handle controlled substances
in California, Registrant is not eligible to maintain a DEA
registration. Accordingly, the Agency will order that Registrant'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.
BA6612142 issued to Massoud Amini, M.D. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR
0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I
hereby deny any pending applications of Massoud Amini, M.D., to renew
or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application
of Massoud Amini, M.D., for additional registration in California. This
Order is effective March 10, 2025.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on
January 31, 2025, by Acting Administrator Derek Maltz. 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. 2025-02342 Filed 2-6-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P