[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 30 (Friday, February 14, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9635-9636]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-02629]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Yogesh Patel, M.D.; Decision and Order
On June 7, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Yogesh Patel, M.D.,
of Grand Junction, Colorado (Registrant). Request for Final Agency
Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 1, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed the
revocation of Registrant's Certificate of Registration No. FP8684931,
alleging that Registrant's registration should be revoked because
Registrant is ``currently without authority to handle controlled
substances in Colorado, 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 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. at
2 (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/applicant'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
August 1, 2024, the Agency finds that service of the OSC on
Registrant was adequate. Specifically, the included Declaration from
a DEA Diversion Investigator (DI) indicates that on July 1, 2024,
Registrant was personally served a copy of the OSC at a residence
located in Illinois. RFAAX 2, at 1-2. Registrant also signed a DEA
Form 12 acknowledging receipt of the OSC on this date. Id. at 2;
RFAAX 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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(d), (e), (f)(1), 1301.46. RFAA, at
1; see also 21 CFR 1316.67.
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 on or about January 22, 2024, Registrant entered into a Non-
Disciplinary Interim Cessation of Practice Agreement with the Colorado
Medical Board that indefinitely prohibited him from ``performing any
act requiring a license issued by the Colorado Medical Board.'' RFAAX
1, at 1. According to Colorado online records, of which the Agency
takes official notice, Registrant's Colorado medical license is under
an ``Active--Restricted'' status and Registrant is not permitted to
practice medicine.\2\ Colorado Division of Professions and Occupations
License Search, https://apps2.colorado.gov/dora/licensing/lookup/.aspx
(last visited date of signature of this Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 the DEA Office of the Administrator,
Drug Enforcement Administration at [email protected].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, the Agency finds that Registrant is not licensed to
practice medicine in Colorado, the state in which he is registered with
DEA.
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.
Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 270 (2006) (``The Attorney General
can register a physician to dispense controlled substances `if the
applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled substances under
the laws of the State in which he practices.' . . . The very definition
of a `practitioner' eligible to prescribe includes physicians
`licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, by the United States or
the jurisdiction in which he practices' to dispense controlled
substances. Sec. 802(21).''). The Agency has applied these principles
consistently. See, e.g., James L. Hooper, M.D., 76 FR 71,371, 71,372
(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).\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, M.D., 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, M.D., 43 FR at 27,617.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 9636]]
According to Colorado statute, ``dispense'' means ``to deliver a
controlled substance to an ultimate user, patient, or research subject
by or pursuant to the lawful order of a practitioner, including the
prescribing, administering, packaging, labeling, or compounding
necessary to prepare the substance for that delivery.'' Colo. Rev.
Stat. Sec. 18-18-102(9) (2024). Further, a ``practitioner'' means a
``physician . . . or other person licensed, registered, or otherwise
permitted, by this state, to distribute, dispense, conduct research
with respect to, administer, or to use in teaching or chemical
analysis, a controlled substance in the course of professional practice
or research.'' Id. Sec. 18-18-102(29).
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant
lacks authority to practice medicine in Colorado. As discussed above, a
physician must be a licensed practitioner to dispense a controlled
substance in Colorado. Thus, because Registrant lacks authority to
practice medicine in Colorado and, therefore, is not authorized to
handle controlled substances in Colorado, 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.
FP8684931, issued to Yogesh Patel, 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 Yogesh Patel, M.D., to renew or
modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of
Yogesh Patel, M.D., for additional registration in Colorado. This Order
is effective March 17, 2025.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on
February 10, 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. 2025-02629 Filed 2-13-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P