[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 10 (Thursday, January 15, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1823-1827]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-00627]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Jason Vanshaar, M.D.; Decision and Order
On May 28, 2025, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause and Immediate Suspension of
Registration (OSC/ISO) to Jason VanShaar, M.D., of Uintah, Utah
(Registrant). OSC/ISO, at 1, 9; Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA),
Exhibit (RFAAX) 1, at 1, 9. The OSC/ISO informed Registrant of the
immediate suspension of his DEA Certificate of Registration, No.
FV2721694, based in Utah, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(d), alleging that
Registrant's continued registration constitutes ``an imminent danger to
the public health or safety.'' OSC/ISO, at 1; RFAAX 1, at 1 (quoting 21
U.S.C. 824(d)). The OSC/ISO also proposed the revocation of
Registrant's DEA Certificate of Registration, No. FV2721694, and the
denial of Registrant's application for an additional DEA Certificate of
Registration, No. W24166810C, based in Arizona, alleging that
Registrant's continued registration is inconsistent with the public
interest. OSC/ISO, at 1; RFAAX 1, at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1);
824(a)(4)).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on the Government's submissions in its RFAA dated July
15, 2025, the Agency finds that service of the OSC/ISO on Registrant
was adequate. Specifically, the Declaration from a DEA Diversion
Investigator (DI) indicates that on May 29, 2025, the DI traveled to
Registrant's registered address and personally served the OSC/ISO on
Registrant. RFAAX 2, at 2; see also id. at 3 (Form DEA-12 signed by
Registrant acknowledging receipt of the OSC/ISO).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The OSC/ISO alleged that from at least February 2021 to at least
March 2025, Registrant repeatedly violated federal and Utah state law
by issuing at least 288 prescriptions for Schedule II-IV controlled
substances to four patients outside the usual course of professional
practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose, in violation of 21
CFR 1306.04(a); Utah Code Ann. Sec. Sec. 58-1-501(2)(a)(xiii)(A), 58-
37-6(7)(i), 58-37-19(2)(a)-(e), 58-37f-304(2)(a)-(b)(i); and Utah
Admin. Code r. Sec. 156-37-602(1)(b)-(c).\2\ OSC/ISO, at 2-4; RFAAX 1,
at 2-4. Specifically, the OSC/ISO alleged that, among other things,
Registrant failed to determine medical necessity for prescribing
controlled substances, failed to conduct appropriate physical exams,
failed to maintain accurate medical records, and prescribed dangerous
combinations of controlled substances. OSC/ISO, at 4; RFAAX 1, at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Agency need not adjudicate the criminal violations
alleged in the OSC/ISO. Ruan v. United States, 597 U.S. 450 (2022)
(decided in the context of criminal proceedings).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 15, 2025, the Government submitted an RFAA requesting that
the Agency issue a default final order revoking Registrant's
registration and denying Registrant's application. RFAA, at 9-10. After
carefully reviewing the entire record and conducting the analysis as
set forth in more detail below, the Agency grants the Government's
request for final agency action, revokes Registrant's registration, and
denies Registrant's application.
[[Page 1824]]
I. Default Determination
Under 21 CFR 1301.43, a registrant entitled to a hearing who fails
to file a timely hearing request ``within 30 days after the date of
receipt of the [OSC/ISO] . . . shall be deemed to have waived their
right to a hearing and to be in default'' unless ``good cause'' is
established for the failure. 21 CFR 1301.43(a) & (c)(1). In the absence
of a demonstration of good cause, a registrant who fails to timely file
an answer also is ``deemed to have waived their right to a hearing and
to be in default.'' 21 CFR 1301.43(c)(2). Unless excused, a default is
deemed to constitute ``an admission of the factual allegations of the
[OSC/ISO].'' 21 CFR 1301.43(e).
Here, the OSC/ISO 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. OSC/ISO, at 8-9; RFAAX 1, at 8-9 (citing 21 CFR
1301.43). According to the Government's RFAA, Registrant failed to
request a hearing. RFAA, at 2. Thus, the Agency finds that Registrant
is in default and therefore has admitted to the factual allegations in
the OSC/ISO. 21 CFR 1301.43(e).
II. Applicable Law
As the Supreme Court stated in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1
(2005), ``the main objectives of the [Controlled Substances Act (CSA)]
were to conquer drug abuse and control the legitimate and illegitimate
traffic in controlled substances.'' 545 U.S. at 12. Gonzales explained
that:
Congress was particularly concerned with the need to prevent the
diversion of drugs from legitimate to illicit channels. To
effectuate these goals, Congress devised a closed regulatory system
making it unlawful to manufacture, distribute, dispense, or possess
any controlled substance except in a manner authorized by the CSA .
. . . The CSA and its implementing regulations set forth strict
requirements regarding registration, labeling and packaging,
production quotas, drug security, and recordkeeping.
Id. at 12-14.
The OSC/ISO's allegations concern the CSA's ``statutory and
regulatory provisions . . . mandating . . . compliance with . . .
prescription requirements'' and, therefore, go to the heart of the
CSA's ``closed regulatory system'' specifically designed ``to conquer
drug abuse and to control the legitimate and illegitimate traffic in
controlled substances,'' and ``to prevent the diversion of drugs from
legitimate to illicit channels.'' Id. at 12-14, 27.
A. Allegation That Registrant Improperly Prescribed Controlled
Substances
According to the CSA's implementing regulations, a lawful
controlled substance prescription is one that is ``issued for a
legitimate medical purpose by an individual practitioner acting in the
usual course of his professional practice.'' 21 CFR 1306.04(a); see
Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 274 (2006), United States v. Hayes,
595 F.2d 258 (5th Cir. 1979), rehearing den., 598 F.2d 620 (5th Cir.
1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 866 (1979); RFAAX 1, at 2. A
``practitioner must establish and maintain a bona fide doctor-patient
relationship in order to act `in the usual course of . . . professional
practice' and to issue a prescription for a `legitimate medical
purpose.' '' Dewey C. MacKay, M.D., 75 FR 49,956, 49,973 (2010).
As for state law, Utah regulations state that unprofessional
conduct includes issuing a prescription ``without first obtaining
information in the usual course of professional practice, that is
sufficient to establish a diagnosis, to identify conditions, and to
identify contraindications to the proposed treatment.'' Utah Code Ann.
Sec. 58-1-501(2)(a)(xiii)(A); RFAAX 1, at 1-2.
The Utah Controlled Substances Act states that a practitioner ``may
not prescribe or administer dosages of a controlled substance in excess
of medically recognized quantities necessary to treat the ailment,
malady, or condition of the ultimate user.'' Utah Code Ann. Sec. 58-
37-6(7)(i); RFAAX 1, at 2. The Utah Controlled Substances Act also
requires that, subject to very limited exceptions not applicable here,
``a prescriber may not issue an initial opiate prescription without
discussing with the patient . . . (a) the risks of addiction and
overdose associated with opiate drugs; (b) the dangers of taking
opiates with alcohol, benzodiazepines, and other central nervous system
depressants; (c) the reasons why the prescription is necessary; (d)
alternative treatments that may be available; and (e) other risks
associated with the use of the drugs being prescribed.'' Utah Code Ann.
Sec. 58-37-19(2)(a)-(e); RFAAX 1, at 2.
Moreover, the Utah Controlled Substance Database Act requires that
a prescriber check the Utah Controlled Substance Database for
information about a patient before the first time prescribing him or
her a Schedule II or III opioid. Utah Code Ann. Sec. 58-37f-304(2)(a);
RFAAX 1, at 2. The Utah Controlled Substance Database Act also requires
that the prescriber repeatedly review information about the patient in
the Utah Controlled Substance Database if the prescriber is repeatedly
prescribing a Schedule II or III opioid to the patient. Utah Code Ann.
Sec. 58-37f-304(2)(b)(i); RFAAX 1, at 2.
Finally, the Utah Administrative Code requires that ``[p]rescribing
practitioners shall keep accurate records for each patient reflecting:
(i) examination; (ii) evaluation; and (iii) treatment.'' Utah Admin.
Code r. Sec. 156-37-602(1)(b); RFAAX 1, at 2. The Utah Administrative
Code also requires that ``[p]atient medical records shall: (i)
accurately reflect the prescription or administration of controlled
substances in the treatment of the patient; (ii) the purpose for which
the controlled substance is utilized; and (iii) information upon which
the diagnosis is based.'' Utah Admin. Code r. Sec. 156-37-602(1)(c);
RFAAX 1, at 2.
III. Findings of Fact
In light of Registrant's default, the factual allegations in the
OSC/ISO are deemed admitted. 21 CFR 1301.43(e). Accordingly, Registrant
admits that from at least February 2021 to at least March 2025,
Registrant repeatedly violated federal and Utah state law by issuing at
least 288 prescriptions for Schedule II-IV controlled substances to
four patients outside the course of professional practice and not for a
legitimate medical purpose. OSC/ISO, at 2-4.
Patient C.B.
Registrant admits that between August 23, 2021, and February 3,
2025, Registrant issued at least 40 prescriptions for oxymorphone ER 40
mg (a Schedule II opioid) to Patient C.B. OSC/ISO, at 4. Registrant
also admits that between June 16, 2021, and February 3, 2025,
Registrant issued at least 34 prescriptions for oxycodone 30 mg (a
Schedule II opioid) to Patient C.B. Id. Registrant admits that
Registrant issued all of these prescriptions despite, among other
things: (a) failing to obtain information in the usual course of
professional practice that is sufficient to establish a diagnosis; (b)
failing to conduct and document an appropriate physical examination
before prescribing opioids; (c) prescribing dosages of controlled
substances in excess of medically recognized quantities necessary to
treat the ailment, malady, or condition of the ultimate user; (d)
failing to discuss with the patient the risks associated with opiates
prior to prescribing opiates; (e) failing to periodically check the
Utah Controlled Substance Database while repeatedly prescribing
Schedule II opioids; and (f) failing to maintain accurate medical
[[Page 1825]]
records. Id. Registrant admits that the above prescriptions for
controlled substances issued to Patient C.B. were not issued for a
legitimate medical purpose by an individual practitioner acting in the
usual course of his professional practice. Id.
Patient M.N.
Registrant admits that between February 8, 2021, and June 30, 2023,
Registrant issued at least 31 prescriptions for alprazolam 2 mg (a
Schedule IV benzodiazepine) to Patient M.N. Id. at 5. Registrant also
admits that between February 8, 2021, and June 30, 2023, Registrant
issued at least 32 prescriptions for carisoprodol 350 mg (a Schedule IV
muscle relaxant) to Patient M.N. Id. Registrant further admits that
between February 8, 2021, and June 30, 2023, Registrant issued at least
30 prescriptions for oxycodone 30 mg, at least one prescription for
oxycodone 15 mg, and at least one prescription for oxycodone 5 mg to
Patient M.N. Id. Registrant admits that Registrant issued all of these
prescriptions despite, among other things: (a) repeatedly issuing
overlapping prescriptions for controlled substances resulting in drug
cocktails, including at least 29 Holy Trinity \3\ cocktails, without
sufficiently establishing a diagnosis and identifying contraindications
to the proposed treatment and without discussing with the patient the
dangers of taking opioids in combination with benzodiazepines and other
central nervous system depressants; (b) failing to conduct and document
an appropriate physical examination before prescribing opioids; (c)
prescribing dosages of controlled substances in excess of medically
recognized quantities necessary to treat the ailment, malady, or
condition of the ultimate user; (d) failing to periodically check the
Utah Controlled Substance Database while repeatedly prescribing
Schedule II opioids; and (e) failing to maintain accurate medical
records. Id. Registrant admits that the above prescriptions for
controlled substances issued to Patient M.N. were not issued for a
legitimate medical purpose by an individual practitioner acting in the
usual course of his professional practice. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``Holy Trinity'' refers to opioids in combination with
prescriptions for alprazolam and carisoprodol. Id. Registrant admits
that the ``Holy Trinity'' cocktail greatly increases a patient's
risk of sedation, respiratory depression, coma, and death, and that
DEA has held that these cocktails are highly abused and associated
with diversion. RFAAX 1, at 2 (citing Jacobo Dreszer, M.D., 76 FR
19,386, 19,389 (2011) (describing combinations of opioids and
benzodiazepines as ``drug cocktails'' and noting that when ``used in
combination, the potential for [a] drug overdose and death is
increased'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patient S.C.
Registrant admits that between March 5, 2021, and February 5, 2025,
Registrant issued at least 38 prescriptions for alprazolam 2 mg to
Patient S.C. Id. at 6. Registrant also admits that between March 5,
2021, and February 5, 2025, Registrant issued at least 40 prescriptions
for oxycodone 30 mg to Patient S.C. Id. Registrant further admits that
between March 5, 2021, and February 5, 2025, Registrant issued at least
38 prescriptions for carisoprodol 350 mg to Patient S.C. Id. Registrant
admits that Registrant issued all of these prescriptions despite, among
other things: (a) repeatedly issuing overlapping prescriptions for
controlled substances resulting in drug cocktails, including at least
38 Holy Trinity cocktails, without sufficiently establishing a
diagnosis and identifying contraindications to the proposed treatment
and without discussing with the patient the dangers of taking opioids
in combination with benzodiazepines and other central nervous system
depressants; (b) failing to conduct and document an appropriate
physical examination before prescribing opioids; (c) prescribing
dosages of controlled substances in excess of medically recognized
quantities necessary to treat the ailment, malady, or condition of the
ultimate user; (d) failing to periodically check the Utah Controlled
Substance Database while repeatedly prescribing Schedule II opioids;
and (e) failing to maintain accurate medical records. Id. Registrant
admits that the above prescriptions for controlled substances issued to
Patient S.C. were not issued for a legitimate medical purpose by an
individual practitioner acting in the usual course of his professional
practice. Id.
Patient A.L.
Registrant admits that between September 20, 2024, and March 14,
2025, Registrant issued approximately 9 prescriptions for oxycodone 30
mg to Patient A.L. OSC/ISO, at 7. Registrant also admits that between
September 20, 2024, and March 14, 2025, Registrant issued approximately
9 prescriptions for Adderall \4\ 15 mg (a Schedule II central nervous
system stimulant) to Patient A.L. Id. Registrant admits that Registrant
issued all of these prescriptions despite, among other things: (a)
failing to obtain information in the usual course of professional
practice that is sufficient to establish a diagnosis; (b) failing to
conduct and document an appropriate physical examination before
prescribing opioids; (c) prescribing dosages of controlled substances
in excess of medically recognized quantities necessary to treat the
ailment, malady, or condition of the ultimate user; (d) failing to
discuss with the patient the risks associated with opiates prior to
prescribing opiates; (e) failing to periodically check the Utah
Controlled Substance Database while repeatedly prescribing Schedule II
opioids; and (f) failing to maintain accurate medical records. Id.
Registrant admits that the above prescriptions for controlled
substances issued to Patient A.L. were not issued for a legitimate
medical purpose by an individual practitioner acting in the usual
course of his professional practice. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Adderall is a brand name for amphetamine/dextroamphetamine
mixed salts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEA retained an independent medical expert to review, among other
materials, Registrant's patient files and/or prescribing history for
Patients C.B., M.N., S.C., and A.L. Id. at 8. DEA's medical expert
concluded that Registrant's issuance of the above prescriptions fell
outside the standard of care applicable to the practice of medicine in
Utah. Id.
In consideration of the above, the Agency finds substantial record
evidence that Registrant issued at least 288 prescriptions that lacked
a legitimate medical purpose and were issued outside the usual course
of professional practice in Utah.
IV. Public Interest Determination
A. Legal Background on Public Interest Determinations
When the CSA's requirements are not met, the Attorney General ``may
deny, suspend, or revoke [a] registration if . . . the [registrant's]
registration would be `inconsistent with the public interest.' ''
Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 251 (2006) (quoting 21 U.S.C.
824(a)(4)). In the case of a ``practitioner,'' Congress directed the
Attorney General to consider five factors in making the public interest
determination. Id.; 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1)(A-E).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The five factors are:
(A) The recommendation of the appropriate State licensing board
or professional disciplinary authority.
(B) The [registrant's] experience in dispensing, or conducting
research with respect to controlled substances.
(C) The [registrant's] conviction record under Federal or State
laws relating to the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of
controlled substances.
(D) Compliance with applicable State, Federal, or local laws
relating to controlled substances.
(E) Such other conduct which may threaten the public health and
safety.
21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1)(A-E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1826]]
The five factors are considered in the disjunctive. Gonzales v.
Oregon, 546 U.S. at 292-93 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (``It is well
established that these factors are to be considered in the
disjunctive,'' quoting In re Arora, 60 FR 4447, 4448 (1995)); Robert A.
Leslie, M.D., 68 FR 15,227, 15,230 (2003). Each factor is weighed on a
case-by-case basis. David H. Gillis, M.D., 58 FR 37,507, 37,508 (1993);
see Morall v. Drug Enf't Admin., 412 F.3d 165, 181 (D.C. Cir. 2005)
(describing the Agency's adjudicative process as ``applying a multi-
factor test through case-by-case adjudication,'' quoting LeMoyne-Owen
Coll. v. N.L.R.B., 357 F.3d 55, 61 (D.C. Cir. 2004)). Any one factor,
or combination of factors, may be decisive, David H. Gillis, M.D., 58
FR at 37,508, and the Agency ``may give each factor the weight . . .
deem[ed] appropriate in determining whether a registration should be
revoked or an application for registration denied.'' Morall, 412 F.3d.
at 185 n.2 (Henderson, J., concurring) (quoting Robert A. Smith, M.D.,
70 FR 33,207, 33,208 (2007)); see also Penick Corp. v. Drug Enf't
Admin., 491 F.3d 483, 490 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
Moreover, while the Agency is required to consider each of the
factors, it ``need not make explicit findings as to each one.'' MacKay
v. Drug Enf't Admin., 664 F.3d 808, 816 (10th Cir. 2011) (quoting
Volkman v. U.S. Drug Enf't Admin., 567 F.3d 215, 222 (6th Cir. 2009));
Jones Total Health Care Pharmacy, LLC v. Drug Enf't Admin., 881 F.3d
823, 830 (11th Cir. 2018); Hoxie v. Drug Enf't Admin., 419 F.3d 477,
482 (6th Cir. 2005). ``In short, . . . the Agency is not required to
mechanically count up the factors and determine how many favor the
Government and how many favor the registrant. Rather, it is an inquiry
which focuses on protecting the public interest; what matters is the
seriousness of the registrant's misconduct.'' Jayam Krishna-Iyer, M.D.,
74 FR 459, 462 (2009). Accordingly, as the Tenth Circuit has
recognized, Agency decisions have explained that findings under a
single factor can support the revocation of a registration. MacKay, 664
F.3d at 821.
The Government has the burden of proof in this proceeding. 21 CFR
1301.44(e).
B. Registrant's Registration is Inconsistent With the Public Interest
While the Agency has considered all the public interest factors of
21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1),\6\ the Government's evidence in support of its
prima facie case is confined to Factors B and D. OSC/ISO, at 7.
Evidence is considered under Factors B and D when it reflects
compliance or non-compliance with laws related to controlled substances
and experience dispensing controlled substances. Kareem Hubbard, M.D.,
87 FR 21,156, 21,162 (2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ As to Factor A, there is no record evidence of disciplinary
action against Registrant's state medical license. 21 U.S.C.
823(g)(1)(A). State authority to practice medicine is ``a necessary,
but not a sufficient condition for registration.'' Robert A. Leslie,
M.D., 68 FR at 15,230. Therefore, ``[t]he fact that the record
contains no evidence of a recommendation by a state licensing board
does not weigh for or against a determination as to whether
continuation of the [registrant's] [registration] is consistent with
the public interest.'' Roni Dreszer, M.D., 76 FR 19,434, 19,444
(2011). As to Factor C, there is no evidence in the record that
Registrant has been convicted of any federal or state law offense
``relating to the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of
controlled substances.'' 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1)(C). However, as Agency
cases have noted, ``the absence of such a conviction is of
considerably less consequence in the public interest inquiry'' and
is therefore not dispositive. Dewey C. MacKay, M.D., 75 FR at
49,973. As to Factor E, the Government's evidence fits squarely
within the parameters of Factors B and D and does not raise ``other
conduct which may threaten the public health and safety.'' 21 U.S.C.
823(g)(1)(E). Accordingly, Factor E does not weigh for or against
Registrant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here, as found above, Registrant is deemed to have admitted and the
Agency finds that Registrant issued at least 288 prescriptions that
lacked a legitimate medical purpose and were issued outside the usual
course of professional practice. Accordingly, the Agency finds
substantial record evidence that Registrant violated 21 CFR 1306.04(a);
Utah Code Ann. Sec. Sec. 58-1-501(2)(a)(xiii)(A), 58-37-6(7)(i), 58-
37-19(2)(a)-(e), 58-37f-304(2)(a)-(b)(i); and Utah Admin. Code r. Sec.
156-37-602(1)(b)-(c). The Agency further finds that after considering
the factors of 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), Registrant's continued registration
is ``inconsistent with the public interest.'' 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4).
Accordingly, the Government satisfied its prima facie burden of showing
that Registrant's continued registration would be ``inconsistent with
the public interest.'' 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4). The Agency also finds that
there is insufficient mitigating evidence to rebut the Government's
prima facie case. Thus, the only remaining issue is whether, in spite
of Registrant's misconduct, he can be trusted with a registration.
V. Sanction
Where, as here, the Government has met the burden of showing that
Registrant's registration is inconsistent with the public interest, the
burden shifts to Registrant to show why he can be entrusted with a
registration. Morall, 412 F.3d. at 174; Jones Total Health Care
Pharmacy, LLC v. Drug Enf't Admin., 881 F.3d 823, 830 (11th Cir. 2018);
Garrett Howard Smith, M.D., 83 FR 18,882, 18,904 (2018). The issue of
trust is necessarily a fact-dependent determination based on the
circumstances presented by the individual registrant. Jeffrey Stein,
M.D., 84 FR 46,968, 46,972 (2019); see also Jones Total Health Care
Pharmacy, 881 F.3d at 833. Moreover, as past performance is the best
predictor of future performance, the Agency requires that a registrant
who has committed acts inconsistent with the public interest accept
responsibility for those acts and demonstrate that he will not engage
in future misconduct. See Jones Total Health Care Pharmacy, 881 F.3d at
833; ALRA Labs, Inc. v. Drug Enf't Admin., 54 F.3d 450, 452 (7th Cir.
1995). The Agency requires a registrant's unequivocal acceptance of
responsibility. Janet S. Pettyjohn, D.O., 89 FR 82,639, 82,641 (2024);
Mohammed Asgar, M.D., 83 FR 29,569, 29,573 (2018); see also Jones Total
Health Care Pharmacy, 881 F.3d at 830-31. In addition, a registrant's
candor during the investigation and hearing is an important factor in
determining acceptance of responsibility and the appropriate sanction.
See Jones Total Health Care Pharmacy, 881 F.3d at 830-31; Hoxie, 419
F.3d at 483-84. Further, the Agency considers the egregiousness and
extent of the misconduct as significant factors in determining the
appropriate sanction. See Jones Total Health Care Pharmacy, 881 F.3d at
834 & n.4. The Agency also considers the need to deter similar acts by
a registrant and by the community of registrants. Jeffrey Stein, M.D.,
84 FR at 46,972-73.
Here, Registrant did not request a hearing or answer the
allegations in the OSC/ISO and was therefore deemed to be in default.
See supra I. To date, Registrant has not filed a motion with the Office
of the Administrator to excuse the default. 21 CFR 1301.43(c)(1).
Registrant has thus failed to answer the allegations contained in the
OSC/ISO and has not otherwise availed himself of the opportunity to
refute the Government's case. As such, Registrant has not accepted
responsibility for the proven violations, has made no representations
regarding his future compliance with the CSA, and has not demonstrated
that he can be trusted with registration. Accordingly, the Agency will
order the revocation of Registrant's registration and the denial of
Registrant's application.
[[Page 1827]]
Order
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21
U.S.C. 824(a) and 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate
of Registration No. FV2721694 issued to Jason VanShaar, M.D., deny the
pending application for a DEA Certificate of Registration No.
W24166810C submitted by Jason VanShaar, M.D., and deny any other
pending applications submitted by Jason VanShaar, M.D., in Utah or
Arizona. This Order is effective February 17, 2026.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on
January 6, 2026, by Administrator Terrance C. Cole. 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. 2026-00627 Filed 1-14-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P