John R. Kregenow, D.D.S.; Decision and Order, 50029-50031 [2015-20352]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 159 / Tuesday, August 18, 2015 / Notices
rules, the Secretary will make BPI
gathered in these investigations
available to authorized applicants
representing interested parties (as
defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9)) who are
parties to the investigations under the
APO issued in the investigations,
provided that the application is made
not later than seven days after the
publication of this notice in the Federal
Register. A separate service list will be
maintained by the Secretary for those
parties authorized to receive BPI under
the APO.
Conference.—The Commission’s
Director of Investigations has scheduled
a conference in connection with these
investigations for 9:30 a.m. on
September 1, 2015, at the U.S.
International Trade Commission
Building, 500 E Street SW., Washington,
DC. Requests to appear at the conference
should be emailed to William.bishop@
usitc.gov and Sharon.bellamy@usitc.gov
(DO NOT FILE ON EDIS) on or before
August 28, 2015. Parties in support of
the imposition of countervailing and
antidumping duties in these
investigations and parties in opposition
to the imposition of such duties will
each be collectively allocated one hour
within which to make an oral
presentation at the conference. A
nonparty who has testimony that may
aid the Commission’s deliberations may
request permission to present a short
statement at the conference.
Written submissions.—As provided in
sections 201.8 and 207.15 of the
Commission’s rules, any person may
submit to the Commission on or before
September 4, 2015, a written brief
containing information and arguments
pertinent to the subject matter of the
investigations. Parties may file written
testimony in connection with their
presentation at the conference. If briefs
or written testimony contain BPI, they
must conform with the requirements of
sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the
Commission’s rules. Please consult the
Commission’s rules, as amended, 76 FR
61937 (October 6, 2011) and the
Commission’s Handbook on Filing
Procedures, 76 FR 62092 (October 6,
2011), available on the Commission’s
Web site at https://edis.usitc.gov.
In accordance with sections 201.16(c)
and 207.3 of the rules, each document
filed by a party to the investigations
must be served on all other parties to
the investigations (as identified by
either the public or BPI service list), and
a certificate of service must be timely
filed. The Secretary will not accept a
document for filing without a certificate
of service.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:02 Aug 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
Authority: These investigations are being
conducted under authority of title VII of the
Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published
pursuant to section 207.12 of the
Commission’s rules.
Issued: August 12, 2015.
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2015–20266 Filed 8–17–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Victor B. Williams, M.D.; Decision and
Order
On January 21, 2015, the Deputy
Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA), issued an Order
to Show Cause to Victor B. Williams,
M.D. (Respondent), of Little Rock,
Arkansas. GX 1. The Show Cause Order
proposed the revocation of
Respondent’s DEA Certificate of
Registration BW6686464, and the denial
of any pending application to renew or
modify his registration, on the ground
that he lacks authority to handle
controlled substances in Arkansas, the
State in which he is registered with
DEA. Show Cause Order, at 1 (citing 21
U.S.C. 823(f) & 824(a) (3)). Id.
Specifically, the Show Cause Order
alleged that on April 10, 2014, the
Arkansas State Medical Board issued to
Respondent an ‘‘Order and Notice of
Hearing,’’ which revoked his medical
license. Id. The Order then alleged that
as a result of the revocation, Respondent
is without authority to handle
controlled substances in Arkansas, the
State in which he is registered, and
therefore, his registration is subject to
revocation.1 Id. at 1 (citations omitted).
As evidenced by the signed return
receipt card, on January 27, 2015, the
Show Cause Order was served on
Respondent. GX 3. On February 3, 2015,
Respondent, through his counsel, sent a
letter acknowledging receipt of the
Show Cause Order to the Office of
Administrative Law Judges. GX 4.
However, Respondent’s counsel did not
request a hearing on the allegations. See
id. Thereafter, on February 19, 2015, the
Government submitted a Request for
Final Agency Action seeking a final
order revoking Respondent’s
1 The Show Cause Order also notified Respondent
of his right to request a hearing on the allegations
or to submit a written statement in lieu of a hearing,
the procedure for electing either option, and the
consequence of failing to elect either option. Id. at
2 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43).
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
50029
registration. See Government Request
for Final Agency Action, at 5 (citing 21
CFR 1301.43(e)).
On June 2, 2015, the Government
represented to this office that
Respondent’s registration had expired
on May 31, 2015 because he did not
submit a renewal application at least 45
days before his registration’s expiration
date, as required by the Agency’s
regulation which is applicable to a
registrant who has been served with an
Order to Show Cause. See 21 CFR
1301.36(i). Moreover, according to the
registration records of the Agency (of
which I take official notice, 5 U.S.C.
556(e)), Respondent has not submitted a
renewal application, whether timely or
not, and his registration has been retired
by the Agency. Accordingly, I find that
Respondent’s registration expired on
May 31, 2015 and that there is no
application pending before the Agency.
It is well settled that ‘‘[i]f a registrant
has not submitted a timely renewal
application prior to the expiration date,
then the registration expires and there is
nothing to revoke.’’ Ronald J. Riegel, 63
FR 67132, 67133 (1998); see also
William W. Nucklos, 73 FR 34330
(2008). Furthermore, because
Respondent did not file a renewal
application, there is no application to
act upon. See Nucklos, 73 FR at 34330.
Accordingly, because there is neither a
registration, nor an application, to act
upon, I hold that this case is now moot.
Order
Pursuant to the authority vested in me
by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), as well as 28 CFR
0.100(b), I order that the Order to Show
Cause issued to Victor B. Williams,
M.D., be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
Dated: August 10, 2015.
Chuck Rosenberg,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015–20351 Filed 8–17–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
John R. Kregenow, D.D.S.; Decision
and Order
On October 29, 2014, the Deputy
Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA), issued an Order
to Show Cause to John R. Kregenow,
D.D.S. (Registrant), of Milwaukee,
Wisconsin. GX 1, at 1. The Show Cause
Order proposed the revocation of
Registrant’s DEA Certificate of
Registration AK8212348, and the denial
of any pending applications for renewal
E:\FR\FM\18AUN1.SGM
18AUN1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
50030
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 159 / Tuesday, August 18, 2015 / Notices
or modification of the registration, on
the ground that he lacks authority to
handle controlled substances in
Wisconsin, the State in which he is
registered with DEA. Id. (citing 21
U.S.C. 823(f) & 824(a)(3)).
The Show Cause Order specifically
alleged that on September 3, 2014, the
Wisconsin Dentistry Examining Board
(hereinafter, the Board) issued an Order
of Summary Suspension, suspending
Registrant’s dental license and that the
Order ‘‘is still in effect.’’ Id. The Show
Cause Order thus asserted that ‘‘DEA
must revoke [Registrant’s] registration
based upon [his] lack of authority to
handle controlled substances in the
State of Wisconsin.’’ 1 Id. at 1–2 (citing
21 U.S.C. 802(21), 823(f) and 824(a) (3)).
On November 6, 2014, a Diversion
Investigator (DI) attempted to serve the
Show Cause Order on Registrant by
travelling to his residence but no one
was home. GX 6, at 2. (Declaration of
Diversion Investigator). The DI then left
at Registrant’s residence an envelope
which contained a copy of the Show
Cause Order, a Voluntary Surrender
Form, and written ‘‘instructions
describing [Registrant’s] options
regarding his . . . registration.’’ Id.
The next day, the DI mailed a copy of
the Show Cause Order by certified mail,
return receipt requested, addressed to
Registrant at his residence. Id. The same
day, the DI also emailed an electronic
copy of the Order to the two previous
email addresses associated with his
registration.2 Id.
On December 8, 2014, the DI received
a return receipt card for the mailing
which was signed by Registrant. Id. The
card was dated December 3, 2014. Id.,
see also GX 5, at 2. Based on the signed
return receipt card, I find that the
Government accomplished service on
December 3, 2014.
Based on the Government’s
representation that since the date of
service, neither Registrant, nor any
person purporting to represent him,
‘‘has requested a hearing or otherwise
corresponded with DEA’’ regarding the
Show Cause Order, and finding that
more than 30 days have now passed
since the date of service, I find that
Registrant has waived his right to either
request a hearing on the allegations of
the Show Cause Order or to submit a
written statement in lieu of a hearing.
See 21 CFR 1301.43(c) & (d). I therefore
issue this Decision and Final Order
based on the record submitted by the
1 The Show Cause Order also notified Registrant
of his right to request a hearing on the allegations
or to submit a written statement in lieu of a hearing,
the procedure for electing either option, and the
consequence for failing to elect either option. Id. at
2 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:02 Aug 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
Government. See 21 CFR 1301.43(e). I
make the following findings.
Findings of Fact
Registrant is the holder of DEA
Certificate of Registration AK8212348,
pursuant to which he is authorized to
dispense controlled substances in
schedules II through V as a practitioner,
at the registered address of 6015 West
Forest Home Ave., Unit 1, Old Grove
Shopping Center, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin. GX 2. His registration does
not expire until December 31, 2015. Id.
On September 3, 2014, the Board
summarily suspended Registrant’s
dental license, finding ‘‘probable cause
to believe [he] violated the provisions of
Wis. Stat. Ch. 447’’ and that ‘‘the public
health, safety or welfare imperatively
requires emergency action.’’ GX 3, at
10–11. While Registrant was entitled to
a hearing to challenge the summary
suspension, id. at 11, on March 11,
2015, Registrant waived his right to a
hearing on the allegations and
consented to the entry by the Board of
a Final Decision and Order revoking his
medical license. Stipulation, at 1, In re
John R. Kregenow, D.D.S . (Wis. Dent.
Exam’ng. Bd. 2015).
On May 6, 2015, the Board issued its
Final Decision and Order, revoking
Registrant’s license to practice
dentistry.3 Final Decision and Order, at
2, In re Kregenow. The Board found that
Registrant had engaged in
unprofessional conduct, which
included, inter alia, ‘‘[a]dministering,
dispensing, prescribing, supplying or
obtaining controlled substances . . .
other than in the course of legitimate
practice, or as otherwise prohibited by
law.’’ Wis. Admin. Code § DE 5.02(6)
(cited in Final Decision and Order, at 2).
The Board further found that Registrant
had ‘‘elected to retire from the practice
of dentistry’’ and revoked his license to
‘‘ensure protection of the public,
rehabilitation of Respondent and
general deterrence.’’ Id.
Based on the Board’s order, I find that
Registrant no longer possesses authority
to dispense controlled substances in
Wisconsin, the State in which he is
registered under the Controlled
Substances Act.
Discussion
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the
Attorney General is authorized to
3 This Order was obtained through an online
search of the Board of Dentistry’s Web site. Under
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), an agency
‘‘may take official notice of facts at any stage in a
proceeding—even in the final decision.’’ U.S. Dept.
of Justice, Attorney General’s Manual on the
Administrative Procedure Act 80 (1947) (Wm. W.
Gaunt & Sons, Inc., Reprint 1979); see also 5 U.S.C.
556(e); 21 CFR 1316.59(e).
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
suspend or revoke a registration issued
under section 823, ‘‘upon a finding that
the registrant . . . has had his State
license . . . suspended [or] revoked
. . . by competent State authority and is
no longer authorized by State law to
engage in the . . . dispensing of
controlled substances.’’ Moreover, the
Agency has 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 James L. Hooper, 76 FR
71371 (2011), pet. for rev. denied,
Hooper v. Holder, 481 Fed. App’x. 826
(4th Cir. 2012).
This rule derives from the text of two
provisions of the CSA. First, Congress
defined ‘‘[t]he term ‘practitioner’ [to]
mean[ ] a . . . dentist . . . 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(f). Because Congress has
clearly mandated that a practitioner
possess state authority in order to be
deemed a practitioner under the Act,
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 engages in professional
practice. See, e.g., Sharad C. Patel, 80
FR 28693, 28695 (2015); Calvin Ramsey,
76 FR 20034, 20036 (2011); Sheran
Arden Yeates, M.D., 71 FR 39130, 39131
(2006); Dominick A. Ricci, 58 FR 51104,
51105 (1993); Bobby Watts, 53 FR
11919, 11920 (1988).
Thus, because Registrant no longer
possesses lawful authority to practice
dentistry in the Wisconsin, see Wis.
Stat. §§ 447.03(1) & 961.01(a), the State
where he is currently registered, I will
order that Registrant’s DEA registration
be revoked.
Order
Pursuant to the authority vested in me
by 21 U.S.C. 824(a) and 28 CFR 0.100(b)
I order that DEA Certificate of
Registration AK8212348 issued to John
R. Kregenow, D.D.S., be, and it hereby
is, revoked. I further order that any
E:\FR\FM\18AUN1.SGM
18AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 159 / Tuesday, August 18, 2015 / Notices
application of John R. Kregenow, D.D.S.,
to renew or modify this registration, be,
and it hereby is, denied. This Order is
effective immediately.4
Dated: August 10, 2015.
Chuck Rosenberg,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015–20352 Filed 8–17–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Ronald A. Green, M.D.; Decision and
Order
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
On February 6, 2015, the Deputy
Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement
Administration, issued an Order to
Show Cause to Ronald A. Green, M.D.
(Registrant), of Houston, Texas. GX 1.
The Show Cause Order proposed the
revocation of Registrant’s DEA
Certificate of Registration FG1729699,
pursuant to which he is authorized to
dispense controlled substances in
schedules II through V as a practitioner,
as well as the denial of any pending
applications to renew or modify his
registration, on the ground that he does
not ‘‘have authority to handle controlled
substances in’’ Texas, ‘‘the State in
which [he is] registered with the DEA.’’
Id.
The Show Cause Order specifically
alleged that on December 10, 2014, the
Disciplinary Panel of the Texas Medical
Board (TMB) issued an Order of
Temporary Suspension, which
suspended his medical license the same
day. Id. The Show Cause Order further
alleged that as a consequence of the
Board’s order, Registrant is currently
without authority to handle controlled
substances in Texas, the State in which
he holds his DEA registration.1 Id.
On February 11, 2015, a DEA
Diversion Investigator (DI) initially
attempted to personally serve Registrant
by travelling to his registered location.
GX 4, at 1. However, the DI found that
his practice was closed and was told by
employees of a bank located across the
hall that no one had seen Registrant
recently. Id. Thereafter, the DI obtained
4 For the same reasons that the Wisconsin Board
summarily suspended Registrant’s dental license, I
conclude that the public interest requires that this
Order be effective immediately. See 21 CFR
1316.67.
1 The Show Cause Order also informed Registrant
of his right to request a hearing on the allegations
or to submit a written statement of position on the
matters alleged in the Order while waiving his right
to a hearing, the procedure for electing either
option, and the consequence of failing to elect
either option. GX 1, at 1–2 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:02 Aug 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
the address of Registrant’s residence
from the Texas Department of Public
Safety and on February 17, went to his
residence. Id. at 2. The DI rang the
doorbell and knocked on the door
several times but received no response.
Id. The DI then slid a copy of the Show
Cause Order under the front door. Id.
Three months later (on May 20, 2015),
the Office of Administrative Law Judges
received a fax from Registrant which
included a document entitled
‘‘Response to First Amended Complaint
and Motion to Dismiss,’’ which he
apparently filed in the proceeding
brought against him by the Texas
Medical Board. Registrant did not,
however, request a hearing on the Show
Cause Order. See 21 CFR 1301.43(a) &
(d). Moreover, to the extent Registrant
submitted this document as his
statement of position, see id.
§ 1301.43(c), his filing does not contain
any explanation for why good cause
exists to excuse its untimeliness. Id.
§§ 1301.43(d), 1316.47(b).
In the meantime, on April 7, 2015, the
Government submitted a Request for
Final Agency Action along with the
investigative record, which it
subsequently supplemented by
providing a copy of Registrant’s filing
with the Office of Administrative Law
Judges. In its Request, the Government
asserts that Registrant has waived his
right to a hearing. Request for Final
Agency Action, at 4.
Based on my review of the record, I
find that Registrant was properly served
with the Show Cause Order. I further
find that Registrant has waived his right
to a hearing, as well as his right to
submit a statement of position on the
allegations of the Show Cause Order. Id.
§ 1301.44(d). I make the following
findings.
Findings
Registrant is the holder of DEA
Certificate of Registration FG1729699,
pursuant to which he is authorized to
dispense controlled substances in
schedules II through V as a practitioner,
at the registered address of: Paradigm
Center for Integrative Medicine, 7505
Fannin, Suite 120, Houston, TX 77054.
GX 2. This registration is due to expire
on September 30, 2015. Id.
On December 10, 2014, a Disciplinary
Panel of the TMB issued an Order of
Temporary Suspension, which
suspended Registrant’s medical license,
based upon its finding that Registrant’s
‘‘continuation in the practice of
medicine would constitute a continuing
threat to public welfare.’’ GX 3, at 3, 5.2
2 The TMB’s Order contains numerous
conclusions of law based on Registrant’s violations
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
50031
According to the TMB’s Web site, the
Order remains in effect as of this date.
See https://reg.tmb.state.tx.us/
OnLineVerif/Phys_ReportVerif_new.asp.
Accordingly, I find that Registrant is
currently without authority under the
laws of the State of Texas to dispense
controlled substances.
Discussion
The Controlled Substances Act (CSA)
grants the Attorney General authority to
revoke a registration ‘‘upon a finding
that the registrant . . . has had his State
license or registration suspended [or]
revoked . . . and is no longer
authorized by State law to engage in the
. . . distribution [or] dispensing of
controlled substances.’’ 21 U.S.C.
824(a)(3). Based on the CSA’s provisions
which define the term ‘‘practitioner’’
and set forth the requirement for
obtaining a registration as such, DEA
has long held that a practitioner must be
currently authorized to handle
controlled substances in the
‘‘jurisdiction in which he practices’’ in
order to maintain a DEA registration.
See 21 U.S.C. 802(21)(‘‘The term
‘practitioner’ means 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.’’); see
also id. § 823(f) (‘‘The Attorney General
shall register practitioners . . . to
dispense . . . if the applicant is
authorized to dispense . . . controlled
substances under the laws of the State
in which he practices.’’).
As these provisions make plain,
possessing authority under state law to
dispense controlled substances is an
essential condition for holding a DEA
registration. See David W. Wang, 72 FR
54297, 54298 (2007); Sheran Arden
Yeates, 71 FR 39130, 39131 (2006);
Dominick A. Ricci, 58 FR 51104, 51105
(1993); Bobby Watts, 53 FR 11919,
11920 (1988). And based on these
provisions, the Agency has also ‘‘held
that revocation is warranted even where
a practitioner’s state authority has been
summarily suspended and the State has
yet to provide the practitioner with a
hearing to challenge the State’s action at
which he . . . may ultimately prevail.’’
of the Texas Medical Practice Act, including that he
prescribed, administered, or dispensed controlled
substance for non-therapeutic purposes and ‘‘in a
manner inconsistent’’ with the Controlled
Substances Act and Texas law, that he failed to
comply with the Board’s regulations regarding the
operation of pain management clinics, that he failed
to adhere to guidelines and requirements for the
treatment of pain, and that he wrote prescriptions
for known abusers of narcotics. GX 3, at 3–5.
E:\FR\FM\18AUN1.SGM
18AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 159 (Tuesday, August 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50029-50031]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20352]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
John R. Kregenow, D.D.S.; Decision and Order
On October 29, 2014, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an
Order to Show Cause to John R. Kregenow, D.D.S. (Registrant), of
Milwaukee, Wisconsin. GX 1, at 1. The Show Cause Order proposed the
revocation of Registrant's DEA Certificate of Registration AK8212348,
and the denial of any pending applications for renewal
[[Page 50030]]
or modification of the registration, on the ground that he lacks
authority to handle controlled substances in Wisconsin, the State in
which he is registered with DEA. Id. (citing 21 U.S.C. 823(f) &
824(a)(3)).
The Show Cause Order specifically alleged that on September 3,
2014, the Wisconsin Dentistry Examining Board (hereinafter, the Board)
issued an Order of Summary Suspension, suspending Registrant's dental
license and that the Order ``is still in effect.'' Id. The Show Cause
Order thus asserted that ``DEA must revoke [Registrant's] registration
based upon [his] lack of authority to handle controlled substances in
the State of Wisconsin.'' \1\ Id. at 1-2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 802(21),
823(f) and 824(a) (3)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Show Cause Order also notified Registrant of his right
to request a hearing on the allegations or to submit a written
statement in lieu of a hearing, the procedure for electing either
option, and the consequence for failing to elect either option. Id.
at 2 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 6, 2014, a Diversion Investigator (DI) attempted to
serve the Show Cause Order on Registrant by travelling to his residence
but no one was home. GX 6, at 2. (Declaration of Diversion
Investigator). The DI then left at Registrant's residence an envelope
which contained a copy of the Show Cause Order, a Voluntary Surrender
Form, and written ``instructions describing [Registrant's] options
regarding his . . . registration.'' Id.
The next day, the DI mailed a copy of the Show Cause Order by
certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to Registrant at
his residence. Id. The same day, the DI also emailed an electronic copy
of the Order to the two previous email addresses associated with his
registration.\2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Government provided no further information regarding the
adequacy of its attempts to serve the Show Cause Order by email, and
in any event, under the Agency's cases, except for where the
intended recipient is a fugitive, email is to be used only after the
traditional methods of service have been used and been ineffective
at accomplishing service. See Emilio Luna, 77 FR 4829, 4830 (2012);
Robert Leigh Kale, 76 FR 48898, 48899-900 (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 8, 2014, the DI received a return receipt card for the
mailing which was signed by Registrant. Id. The card was dated December
3, 2014. Id., see also GX 5, at 2. Based on the signed return receipt
card, I find that the Government accomplished service on December 3,
2014.
Based on the Government's representation that since the date of
service, neither Registrant, nor any person purporting to represent
him, ``has requested a hearing or otherwise corresponded with DEA''
regarding the Show Cause Order, and finding that more than 30 days have
now passed since the date of service, I find that Registrant has waived
his right to either request a hearing on the allegations of the Show
Cause Order or to submit a written statement in lieu of a hearing. See
21 CFR 1301.43(c) & (d). I therefore issue this Decision and Final
Order based on the record submitted by the Government. See 21 CFR
1301.43(e). I make the following findings.
Findings of Fact
Registrant is the holder of DEA Certificate of Registration
AK8212348, pursuant to which he is authorized to dispense controlled
substances in schedules II through V as a practitioner, at the
registered address of 6015 West Forest Home Ave., Unit 1, Old Grove
Shopping Center, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. GX 2. His registration does not
expire until December 31, 2015. Id.
On September 3, 2014, the Board summarily suspended Registrant's
dental license, finding ``probable cause to believe [he] violated the
provisions of Wis. Stat. Ch. 447'' and that ``the public health, safety
or welfare imperatively requires emergency action.'' GX 3, at 10-11.
While Registrant was entitled to a hearing to challenge the summary
suspension, id. at 11, on March 11, 2015, Registrant waived his right
to a hearing on the allegations and consented to the entry by the Board
of a Final Decision and Order revoking his medical license.
Stipulation, at 1, In re John R. Kregenow, D.D.S . (Wis. Dent. Exam'ng.
Bd. 2015).
On May 6, 2015, the Board issued its Final Decision and Order,
revoking Registrant's license to practice dentistry.\3\ Final Decision
and Order, at 2, In re Kregenow. The Board found that Registrant had
engaged in unprofessional conduct, which included, inter alia,
``[a]dministering, dispensing, prescribing, supplying or obtaining
controlled substances . . . other than in the course of legitimate
practice, or as otherwise prohibited by law.'' Wis. Admin. Code Sec.
DE 5.02(6) (cited in Final Decision and Order, at 2). The Board further
found that Registrant had ``elected to retire from the practice of
dentistry'' and revoked his license to ``ensure protection of the
public, rehabilitation of Respondent and general deterrence.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ This Order was obtained through an online search of the
Board of Dentistry's Web site. Under the Administrative Procedure
Act (APA), an agency ``may take official notice of facts at any
stage in a proceeding--even in the final decision.'' U.S. Dept. of
Justice, Attorney General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure
Act 80 (1947) (Wm. W. Gaunt & Sons, Inc., Reprint 1979); see also 5
U.S.C. 556(e); 21 CFR 1316.59(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the Board's order, I find that Registrant no longer
possesses authority to dispense controlled substances in Wisconsin, the
State in which he is registered under the Controlled Substances Act.
Discussion
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized
to suspend or revoke a registration issued under section 823, ``upon a
finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license . . .
suspended [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no
longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of
controlled substances.'' Moreover, the Agency has 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 James L. Hooper, 76 FR 71371 (2011),
pet. for rev. denied, Hooper v. Holder, 481 Fed. App'x. 826 (4th Cir.
2012).
This rule derives from the text of two provisions of the CSA.
First, Congress defined ``[t]he term `practitioner' [to] mean[ ] a . .
. dentist . . . 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(f). Because Congress has clearly mandated
that a practitioner possess state authority in order to be deemed a
practitioner under the Act, 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 engages in professional practice. See,
e.g., Sharad C. Patel, 80 FR 28693, 28695 (2015); Calvin Ramsey, 76 FR
20034, 20036 (2011); Sheran Arden Yeates, M.D., 71 FR 39130, 39131
(2006); Dominick A. Ricci, 58 FR 51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby Watts, 53
FR 11919, 11920 (1988).
Thus, because Registrant no longer possesses lawful authority to
practice dentistry in the Wisconsin, see Wis. Stat. Sec. Sec.
447.03(1) & 961.01(a), the State where he is currently registered, I
will order that Registrant's DEA registration be revoked.
Order
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a) and 28
CFR 0.100(b) I order that DEA Certificate of Registration AK8212348
issued to John R. Kregenow, D.D.S., be, and it hereby is, revoked. I
further order that any
[[Page 50031]]
application of John R. Kregenow, D.D.S., to renew or modify this
registration, be, and it hereby is, denied. This Order is effective
immediately.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For the same reasons that the Wisconsin Board summarily
suspended Registrant's dental license, I conclude that the public
interest requires that this Order be effective immediately. See 21
CFR 1316.67.
Dated: August 10, 2015.
Chuck Rosenberg,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015-20352 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
