[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 118 (Monday, June 23, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26610-26611]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-11480]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
William Thompson IV, M.D.; Decision and Order
On December 2, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to William Thompson IV,
M.D., of Newport Beach, California (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. FT3578082,
alleging that Registrant is ``currently without authority to handle
controlled substances in the State of California, the state in which
[he is] registered with DEA.'' Id. at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C.
824(a)(3)).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ According to Agency records, Registrant's registration
expired on November 30, 2024. See also RFAAX 1, at 1. The Agency has
previously held that it is within its jurisdiction and prerogative
to adjudicate a matter to finality where a registration expired
before issuance of the OSC. Abdul Naushad, M.D., 89 FR 54,059,
54,059-60 (2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
2-3 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). Here, Registrant did not request a
hearing. RFAA, at 4.\2\ ``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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Based on the Government's submissions in its RFAA dated
March 5, 2025, the Agency finds that service of the OSC on
Registrant was adequate. The included declaration from a DEA
Diversion Investigator (DI) indicates that on December 20, 2024, the
DI emailed a copy of the OSC to Registrant's registered email
address and the email was not returned. RFAAX 2, at 1. Here, the
Agency finds that the DI's efforts to serve Registrant 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] 1316.67.'' Id. at 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.
Findings of Fact
The Agency finds that, in light of Registrant's default, the
factual allegations in the OSC are deemed admitted. According to the
OSC, on May 15, 2024, the Medical Board of California issued a Default
Decision and Order revoking Registrant's state medical license
effective on June 14, 2024. RFAAX 1, at 2. According to California
online records, of which the Agency takes official notice,\3\
Registrant's California medical license remains revoked. 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.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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).
\4\ 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.'' The material fact here is
that Registrant, as of the date of this decision, is not licensed to
practice medicine in California. 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].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General may 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
[[Page 26611]]
Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR 27,616, 27,617
(1978).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Sec. 11010 (West 2024). Further, 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. at Sec. 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.
FT3578082 issued to William Thompson IV, 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 William Thompson IV, M.D., to
renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending
application of William Thompson IV, M.D., for additional registration
in California. This Order is effective July 23, 2025.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on
June 17, 2025, by Acting Administrator Robert J. Murphy. 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.
Gregory Aul,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Drug Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 2025-11480 Filed 6-20-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P