Mohammed F. Abdel-Hameed, M.D.; Revocation of Registration, 61366-61370 [E9-28189]

Agencies

• Drug Enforcement Administration
• Department of Justice

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 225 (Tuesday, November 24, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61366-61370]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-28189]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Mohammed F. Abdel-Hameed, M.D.; Revocation of Registration

    On April 4, 2008, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to 
Show Cause to Mohammed F. Abdel-Hameed, M.D. (Respondent), of Orlando, 
Florida. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Respondent's 
DEA Certificate of Registration, BA6015158, as a practitioner, and 
proposed the denial of any pending applications for modification or 
renewal of the registration, on the ground that Respondent's 
``continued registration is inconsistent with the public interest'' as 
that term is defined in 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a)(4). Show Cause 
Order at 1.
    The Show Cause Order specifically alleged that while Respondent is 
licensed as a physician only in Florida, he prescribed controlled 
substances for internet customers ``throughout the United States from 
approximately June 2002, through September 2004, on the basis of online 
questionnaires and/or telephone consultations,'' such that he issued 
prescriptions ``without a legitimate medical purpose and outside the 
usual course of professional practice, in violation of 21 CFR 
1306.04(a) and 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1).'' Id.

[[Page 61367]]

at 1. The Show Cause Order further alleged that Respondent's writing of 
controlled substance prescriptions ``violated state laws that prohibit 
the unauthorized practice of medicine, including unlicensed, out-of-
state physicians issuing controlled substance prescriptions to state 
residents'' in such States as California and Alabama. Id. at 1-2.
    The Show Cause Order was served on Respondent by FedEx to 
Respondent's last-known address on April 11, 2008; on April 14, 2008, 
FedEx delivered the Order. GX 2, at 2; GX 3. Because more than 30 days 
have passed and neither Respondent, nor any other person purporting to 
represent him, has requested a hearing, I find that Respondent has 
waived his right to a hearing. 21 CFR 1301.43(d). I therefore enter 
this Decision and Final Order based on relevant evidence contained in 
the investigative file. See 21 CFR 1301.43(e), 1301.46.
    Having considered the record in this matter, I find that 
Respondent's continued registration is inconsistent with the public 
interest. Accordingly, Respondent's registration will be revoked and 
any pending applications for renewal or modification will be denied. I 
make the following findings.

Findings

    Respondent is the holder of DEA Certificate of Registration, 
BA6015158, which authorizes him to dispense controlled substances in 
schedules II through V, as a practitioner, with a registered location 
in Orlando, Florida. Respondent's registration does not expire until 
June 30, 2010.
    Respondent earned a Ph.D. in genetics and an M.D. from the 
University of California. In 1990, Respondent began practicing medicine 
in the Orlando, Florida area. Throughout the time at issue in this 
proceeding, Respondent was licensed as a physician in only the State of 
Florida. GX 7, at 17; GX 10, at 2.
    On November 4, 2004, two DEA Diversion Investigators (DIs) 
interviewed Respondent. GX 5, at 1. In the interview, Respondent 
indicated that sometime in late 2002, Ken Shobola, the sole owner of 
Ken Drugs, Inc. (``Ken Drugs''), contracted with him to work as an 
internet prescribing physician for Ken Drugs. Id.; GX 7, at 10. 
Respondent worked part-time--20 hours per week--for Ken Drugs/Kenady 
Medical Clinic,\1\ for which he received a bi-weekly paycheck. GX 5, at 
2. Respondent handled both internet-initiated calls and some walk-in 
patients. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Kenady Medical Clinic, Inc., is a Florida corporation 
incorporated by Kenneth Shobola in April 2002. In the period under 
consideration in this decision, Mr. Shobola was the president and 
registered agent of the corporation. GX 7, at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Respondent also indicated to the DIs that he was operating under a 
Ken Drugs/Kenady Medical Clinic policy dated October 8, 2004, under 
which internet prescribing physicians are not expected to prescribe 
controlled substances to internet clients until the patients/clients 
are first seen by a physician or a physician's assistant. Id.
    In September 2002, DEA, in conjunction with other law enforcement 
agencies, commenced a criminal investigation of various web sites which 
were believed to be engaged in the distribution of controlled 
substances in violation of federal law, as well as Ken Drugs, Kennedee 
Group, Inc., pharmacist Kenneth Shobola, and various physicians 
including Respondent. GX 7, at 14. As part of the investigation, on 
March 27, 2003, investigators conducted a trash run at the Ken Drugs 
pharmacy which was located on Waters Avenue in Tampa, Florida. Id. at 
18. The investigators found prescription labels bearing the name ``Dr. 
Fathi Hamid.'' Id. Subsequently, in June 2004, Investigators obtained 
records from the Kenady Medical Clinic, a Tampa-based clinic owed by 
Shobola, which included prescription records signed by ``Hamid'' and 
which bore Respondent's DEA registration number. Id. at 22.
    As part of their investigation, DEA and the cooperating agencies 
conducted seventeen undercover purchases of controlled substance 
prescriptions and refills for hydrocodone, Xanax, and Soma. Id. at 18-
19. Whether the officers initiated contact through https://www.medsviaweb.com or by contacting Ken Drugs directly, each purchase 
included the payment of $120 or $125 for a telephonic consultation fee 
with a purportedly licensed physician. Id. at 19. After payment of the 
fee, each undercover officer talked by telephone to an employee of 
Kenaday Group,\2\ who advised the individual that he or she would have 
to fax his/her medical record accompanied by a photocopy of his/her 
driver's license. Id. Regardless of whether the officer actually faxed 
in his/her medical records, the employee would notify the individual 
that a doctor would soon be available for a consultation, after which, 
according to the employee, the prescribed controlled substances would 
arrive via UPS or FedEx. Id. On all but one of the buys, the phone 
consultation was recorded and transcribed. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Kennedee Group, Inc., a/k/a Kenaday Group, is a Florida 
corporation incorporated by Kenneth Shobola in September 2000. GX 7, 
at 16, 19. Mr. Shobola was president of Kennedee Group. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Throughout the undercover purchases, officers dealt with one of 
three physicians but not with Respondent. See Id. In each instance, the 
telephonic consultation lasted only a few minutes. Id. at 19-20. In 
general, the physicians inquired whether the purchaser had faxed the 
requested medical records to Kenaday Group, the nature of the medical 
complaint, what drugs or medications the purchaser had taken in the 
past, and what medications the purchaser currently desired. Id. at 20.
    The officers, however, rarely faxed in their medical records. Id. 
When they did, the purchaser's age conflicted with the age given on the 
photocopied driver's license. Id. Nevertheless, on each occasion, the 
physicians prescribed schedule III controlled substances containing 
hydrocodone, which was expeditiously shipped and delivered to the 
officer. Id. In no instance was an undercover officer required to 
obtain a physical examination by a doctor associated with Ken Drugs, 
Kenady Medical Clinic, or Kenaday Group. Id.
    On October 7, 2003, the Winchester, Kentucky Police Department 
interviewed E.C., who had used eighteen names and seven addresses to 
receive drug shipments from Ken Drugs. Id. E.C. confessed that he was 
addicted to hydrocodone and that his source for controlled substances 
was Ken Drugs. Id. According to E.C., he initially consulted with one 
of the other three doctors, who requested that he send medical records. 
Id. at 20-21. Although E.C. never sent the requested records, Ken Drugs 
dispensed controlled substances to him. Id. at 21.
    On November 20, 2003, the Cabell County, West Virginia Department 
of Public Safety detained C.W. for traffic violations. Id. In an 
interview, C.W. stated that he and his wife had been obtaining 
hydrocodone 7.5 mg. and 10 mg. tablets and Xanax 1 mg. and 2 mg. 
tablets from Ken Drugs. Id. In order to obtain a larger quantity of 
controlled substances, C.W. and his wife submitted to Ken Drugs the 
names, addresses, drivers' licenses, and medical records of friends and 
relatives, as well as falsified medical records including MRIs and test 
results which were obtained from internet sites. Id.
    In June 2004, the law enforcement agencies obtained records from 
Kenady Medical Clinic corresponding to some of the fictitious names 
given by Mr. and Mrs. C.W. Id. at 22. Among these records were 
prescriptions written by

[[Page 61368]]

``Fathi Hamid'' under Respondent's DEA registration number. Id.
    On September 21, 2004, a search warrant was executed at the Ken 
Drugs pharmacy on Habana Avenue in Tampa, Florida. The Investigators 
obtained computer records which showed that between the dates of 
September 4, 2002, and December 12, 2003, Respondent had issued 992 
controlled substance prescriptions. Respondent issued these 
prescriptions to residents of 38 States and Puerto Rico.
    More specifically, between April 2, 2003, and December 1, 2003, 
Respondent wrote 147 prescriptions for schedule III drugs containing 
hydrocodone and 13 diazepam prescriptions for residents of California. 
Between April 2, 2003, and December 4, 2003, he wrote 54 prescriptions 
for combination hydrocodone drugs for residents of Georgia. Between 
April 4, 2003, and December 11, 2003, he wrote 24 prescriptions for 
combination hydrocodone drugs for residents of Texas. Between June 2, 
2003, and October 27, 2003, he wrote 21 prescriptions for combination 
hydrocodone drugs for residents of Alabama. Between April 4, 2003, and 
December 5, 2003, he wrote nineteen prescriptions for combination 
hydrocodone drugs for residents of North Carolina. Id.
    Combination schedule III controlled substances containing 
hydrocodone heavily predominated in the 992 prescriptions Respondent 
wrote. As I have noted in numerous other decisions, the drugs are 
highly popular drugs with abusers. See Southwood Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 
72 FR 36487, 36504 (2007) (noting 2004 survey of the National Institute 
of Drug Abuse which found that ``9.3 percent of twelfth graders 
reported using Vicodin, a brand name Schedule III controlled substance 
without a prescription in the previous year''); William R. Lockridge, 
71 FR 77791, 77796 (2006) (noting that in 2002, the abuse of 
hydrocodone products resulted in more than 27,000 emergency room 
visits).

Discussion

    Section 304(a) of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) provides that 
a registration to ``dispense a controlled substance * * * may be 
suspended or revoked by the Attorney General upon a finding that the 
registrant * * * has committed such acts as would render his 
registration under section 823 of this title inconsistent with the 
public interest as determined under such section.'' 21 U.S.C. 
824(a)(4). In making the public interest determination, the CSA 
requires consideration of the following factors:

    (1) The recommendation of the appropriate state licensing board 
or professional disciplinary authority.
    (2) The applicant's experience in dispensing * * * controlled 
substances.
    (3) The applicant's conviction record under Federal or State 
laws relating to the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of 
controlled substances.
    (4) Compliance with applicable State, Federal, or local laws 
relating to controlled substances.
    (5) Such other conduct which may threaten the public health and 
safety.

21 U.S.C. 823(f).

    ``[T]hese factors are * * * considered in the disjunctive.'' Robert 
A. Leslie, M.D., 68 FR 15227, 15230 (2003). I may rely on any one or a 
combination of factors, and I may give each factor the weight I deem 
appropriate in determining whether to revoke an existing registration. 
Id. Moreover, I am ``not required to make findings as to all the 
factors.'' Hoxie v. DEA, 419 F.3d 477, 482 (6th Cir. 2005); see also 
Morall v. DEA, 412 F.3d 165, 173-74 (DC Cir. 2005).
    Having considered all of the factors, I acknowledge that the record 
contains no evidence that the State of Florida has taken action against 
Respondent's medical license (factor one) or that Respondent has been 
convicted of an offense related to controlled substances (factor 
three).\3\ However, the record contains substantial evidence that 
Respondent's experience in dispensing controlled substances (factor 
two) and his record of compliance with applicable Federal and state 
laws (factor four) is characterized by his repeated violation of the 
CSA's prescription requirement, as well as his repeated violation of 
state laws and regulations prohibiting the unlicensed practice of 
medicine and setting the standards for prescribing controlled 
substances and dangerous drugs. Accordingly, I conclude that 
Respondent's continued registration would be inconsistent with the 
public interest and will revoke his registration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This Agency has long held that a State's failure to take 
action against a practitioner's authority to dispense controlled 
substances is not dispositive in determining whether the 
continuation of a registration would be consistent with the public 
interest. See Mortimer B. Levin, 55 FR 8209, 8210 (1990). The 
absence of a criminal conviction is likewise not dispositive of the 
public interest inquiry. See, e.g., Edmund Chein, 72 FR 6580, 6593 
n.22 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Factors Two and Four--Respondent's Experience in Dispensing Controlled 
Substances and Record of Compliance With Applicable Controlled 
Substance Laws

    The primary issue in this case is whether the controlled-substance 
prescriptions which Respondent wrote in 2003, pursuant to his 
arrangement with Ken Drugs/Kenady Medical Clinic, were lawful 
prescriptions under the CSA. Under a longstanding DEA regulation, a 
prescription for a controlled substance is not ``effective'' unless it 
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). This regulation further provides that ``an order 
purporting to be a prescription issued not in the usual course of 
professional treatment * * * is not a prescription within the meaning 
and intent of [21 U.S.C. 829] and * * * the person issuing it, shall be 
subject to the penalties provided for violations of the provisions of 
law relating to controlled substances.'' Id. As the Supreme Court 
recently explained: ``The prescription requirement * * * ensures 
patients use controlled substances under the supervision of a doctor so 
as to prevent addiction and recreational abuse. As a corollary, [it] 
also bars doctors from peddling to patients who crave the drugs for 
those prohibited uses.'' Gonzalez v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 274 (2006) 
(citing United States v. Moore, 423 U.S. 122, 135, 143 (1975)).
    Under the CSA, for a physician to act ``in the usual course of * * 
* professional practice'' and to issue a prescription for a 
``legitimate medical purpose,'' he or she must be authorized to 
``practice medicine and to dispense drugs in connection with his [or 
her] professional practice,'' and he or she must also have established 
a bona fide doctor-patient relationship with the individual for whom 
the prescription is written. Moore, 423 U.S. at 140-43. See also 
Patrick W. Stodola, 74 FR 20727, 20731 (2009); Joseph Gaudio, 74 FR 
10083, 10090 (2009). See also Dispensing and Purchasing Controlled 
Substances Over the Internet, 66 FR 21181 (2001).
    A ``physician who engages in the unauthorized practice of 
medicine'' under state laws--such as an out-of-state physician who 
lacks the license to prescribe to a State's residents--``is not a 
practitioner acting in the usual course of * * * professional 
practice'' under the CSA. United Prescription Services, Inc., 72 FR 
50397, 50407 (2007) (citing 21 CFR 1306.04(a)). This rule derives 
directly from the text of the CSA which

[[Page 61369]]

defines the term ``practitioner'' as ``a physician * * * licensed, 
registered, or otherwise permitted, by the United States or the 
jurisdiction in which he practices * * * to * * * dispense * * * a 
controlled substance.'' 21 U.S.C. 802(21). See also Moore, 423 U.S. at 
140-41 (``In the case of a physician [the CSA] contemplates that he is 
authorized by the State to practice medicine and to dispense drugs in 
connecting with his professional practice.'') (emphasis added). A 
controlled-substance prescription issued by a physician who lacks the 
license or authority required to practice medicine within a State is 
therefore unlawful under the CSA. See 21 CFR 1306.04(a).
    As to the issue of a bona fide doctor-patient relationship, at the 
time of the prescriptions at issue in this case, the CSA generally 
looked to state law to determine its elements.\4\ See Stodola, 74 FR at 
20731; Kamir Garces-Mejias, 72 FR 54931, 54935 (2007); see also 
Dispensing and Purchasing Controlled Substances Over the Internet, 66 
FR at 21182-83. As the DEA elaborated in the 2001 Guidance:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ On October 15, 2008, President Bush signed into law the Ryan 
Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2008, Public Law 
110-425, 122 Stat. 4820 (2008). Section 2 of the Act prohibits the 
dispensing of a prescription controlled substance ``by means of the 
Internet without a valid prescription,'' and defines ``[t]he term 
`valid prescription' [to] mean[ ] a prescription that is issued for 
a legitimate medical purpose in the usual course of professional 
practice by * * * a practitioner who has conducted at least 1 in-
person medical evaluation of the patient.'' 122 Stat. 4820. Section 
2 further defines ``the term `in-person medical evaluation' [to] 
mean[ ] a medical evaluation that is conducted with the patient in 
the physical presence of the practitioner, without regard to whether 
portions of the evaluation are conducted by other health 
professionals.'' Id. These provisions do not, however, apply to 
Respondent's conduct.

    For purposes of state law, many state authorities, with the 
endorsement of medical societies, consider the existence of the 
following four elements as an indication that a legitimate doctor/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
patient relationship has been established:

--A patient has a medical complaint;
--A medical history has been taken;
--A physical examination has been performed; and
--Some logical connection exists between the medical complaint, the 
medical history, the physical examination, and the drug prescribed.

66 FR at 21182-83.

    As found above, Respondent wrote 147 prescriptions for schedule III 
controlled substances containing hydrocodone and thirteen prescriptions 
for diazepam for residents of California between April 2, 2003, and 
December 1, 2003. These prescriptions were filled by Ken Drugs pursuant 
to Respondent's contractual arrangement with Ken Drugs/Kenady Medical 
Clinic.
    In 2000, California enacted a law specifically prohibiting the 
prescribing or dispensing of a dangerous drug ``on the Internet for 
delivery to any person in [California], without an appropriate prior 
examination and medical indication therefore, except as authorized by 
Section 2242.'' Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec.  2242.1.\5\ Moreover, in 
2003, the Medical Board of California expressly held that a ``physician 
cannot do a good faith prior examination based on a history, a review 
of medical records, responses to a questionnaire and a telephone 
consultation with the patient, without a physical examination of the 
patient.'' In re John Steven Opsahl, M.D., Decision and Order, at 3 
(Med Bd. Cal. 2003) (available by query at https://publicdocs.medbd.ca.gov/pdl/mbc.aspx). The California Board further 
held that ``[a] physician cannot determine whether there is a medical 
indication for prescription of a dangerous drug without performing a 
physical examination.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This statute became effective on January 1, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, well before Respondent's issuance of the 
prescriptions, the California Board had cited an out-of-state physician 
for violating state law by prescribing to state residents through the 
internet. Citation Order, Carlos Gustavo Levy (Nov. 30, 2001). As 
Respondent did not hold a California license, he clearly violated 
California law and the CSA when he wrote controlled-substance 
prescriptions for California residents. Moreover, because Respondent 
did not perform physical examinations of the California residents, his 
prescriptions were not issued in the usual course of professional 
practice and lacked a legitimate medical purpose and thus violated the 
CSA for this reason as well. See 21 CFR 1306.04(a).
    Respondent wrote 54 prescriptions to residents of Georgia for 
schedule III controlled substances which contain hydrocodone. Under 
Georgia law (which was in effect when he issued the prescriptions), an 
individual ``who is physically located in another state'' and who 
``through the use of any means, including electronic * * * or other 
means of telecommunication, through which medical information or data 
is transmitted, performs an act that is part of a patient care service 
located in this state * * * that would affect the diagnosis or 
treatment of the patient'' is ``engaged in the practice of medicine'' 
in Georgia. Ga. Code Ann. Sec.  43-34-31.1. Such practice of medicine 
requires the individual to have ``a license to practice medicine in 
[Georgia]'' and subjects him or her to ``regulation by the board.'' Id. 
By issuing controlled substance prescriptions to Georgia residents via 
telephone and the internet without having a Georgia license to practice 
medicine, Respondent violated both Georgia law and the CSA.
    In addition, under the regulation of the Georgia Composite State 
Board of Medical Examiners, it is ``unprofessional conduct'' to 
``[p]rovid[e] treatment and/or consultation recommendations via 
electronic or other means unless the licensee has performed a history 
and physical examination of the patient adequate to establish 
differential diagnoses and identify underlying conditions and or 
contraindications to the treatment recommended.'' Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 
360-3-.02(6) (2002). Respondent's failure to perform a physical 
examination on the Georgia residents he prescribed to thus violated 
Georgia law and the CSA for this reason as well. See 21 CFR 1306.04(a).
    Respondent wrote 24 prescriptions to residents of Texas for 
schedule III controlled substances containing hydrocodone. Texas law 
provides that individuals who are ``physically located in another 
jurisdiction but who, through the use of any medium, including an 
electronic medium, perform[ ] an act that is part of a patient care 
service initiated in [Texas] * * * and that would affect the diagnosis 
or treatment of the patient'' are engaged in the practice of medicine. 
Tex. Occup. Code Sec.  151.056(a); see also Tex. Occup. Code Sec.  
155.001 (requiring a license to engage in the practice of medicine). In 
order to issue prescriptions for controlled substances, such 
individuals must also obtain a state registration to dispense such 
drugs, which in turn requires them to be licensed under the laws of 
Texas. Tex. Health & Safety Code Sec. Sec.  481.061(a) & 481.063(d).
    More specifically, Texas regulations provide that ``[p]hysicians 
who treat and prescribe through the Internet are practicing medicine 
and must possess appropriate licensure in all jurisdictions where 
patients reside.'' Tex. Admin. Code 174.4(c). Because Respondent was 
not licensed to practice medicine in Texas and did not hold a Texas 
Controlled Substances Registration, his prescriptions to the Texas 
residents violated Texas law and the CSA. See 1306.04(a).
    Respondent issued 21 prescriptions to residents of Alabama for 
schedule III controlled substances containing hydrocodone. Notably, 
Alabama law defines the practice of medicine to mean ``[t]o diagnose, 
treat, correct, advise or prescribe for any human disease,

[[Page 61370]]

ailment, injury, infirmity, deformity, pain or other condition, 
physical or mental, real or imaginary, by any means or 
instrumentality.'' Ala. Code Sec.  34-24-50(1). Under Alabama law, 
``the practice of medicine * * * across state lines'' as it applies to 
``[t]he rendering of treatment to a patient located within [Alabama] by 
a physician located outside [Alabama] as a result of transmission of 
individual patient data by electronic or other means from this state to 
such physician or his or her agent'' constitutes the ``practice of 
medicine,'' such that ``[n]o person shall engage in the practice of 
medicine * * * across state lines in [Alabama]'' unless he or she has 
``been issued a special purpose license to practice medicine * * * 
across state lines.'' Ala. Code Sec.  34-24-501 & 34-24-502(a). As 
Respondent did not possess a special purpose license from Alabama, his 
prescribing over the internet to these patients constituted violations 
of Alabama law. In issuing these controlled-substance prescriptions, 
Respondent acted outside the usual course of professional practice and 
violated the CSA. See 21 CFR 1306.04(a).
    Respondent wrote nineteen prescriptions for schedule III drugs 
containing hydrocodone to residents of North Carolina. Under North 
Carolina law prior to 2007, ``prescribing medication by use of the 
internet or a toll-free number,'' was ``regarded as practicing 
medicine'' in North Carolina. N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. 90-18(b).\6\ As 
such, it subjected a practitioner to North Carolina law and the 
regulation of the North Carolina Medical Board. Id. North Carolina 
prohibits the practice of medicine without the appropriate license and 
registration and makes out-of-state violators guilty of a ``Class I 
felony.'' N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. 90-18(a). Respondent's prescribing to 
North Carolina residents via the internet clearly violated North 
Carolina law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ This provision was deleted, effective October 1, 2007, by 
S.L. 2007-346, section 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, in February 2001, the North Carolina Medical Board 
issued its position statement, ``Contact with Patients Before 
Prescribing,'' which stated that ``prescribing drugs to an individual 
the prescriber has not personally examined is inappropriate.'' Contact 
with Patients before Prescribing, at 1 (available at https://www.ncmedboard.org/position_statements/). The Board further explained 
that ``[o]rdinarily, this will require that the physician personally 
perform an appropriate history and physical examination, make a 
diagnosis, and formulate a therapeutic plan, a part of which might be a 
prescription.'' Id. As Respondent failed to perform physical 
examinations of these patients, his conduct was not in the usual course 
of professional practice. He consequently violated the CSA in writing 
these prescriptions as well. See 21 CFR 1306.04(a).
    As the foregoing demonstrates, Respondent repeatedly violated state 
laws and regulations prohibiting the unlicensed practice of medicine 
and establishing standards of medical practice by prescribing 
controlled substances to persons he never physically examined and who 
resided in States where he was not licensed to practice and prescribe 
drugs. In issuing the prescriptions, Respondent also acted outside of 
``the usual course of professional practice'' and lacked ``a legitimate 
medical purpose'' and thus repeatedly violated the CSA. I therefore 
conclude that Respondent has committed acts which render his continued 
registration ``inconsistent with the public interest.'' 21 U.S.C. 
824(a)(4). Accordingly, Respondent's registration will be revoked.

Order

    Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  
823(f) and 824(a), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104, I hereby order 
that DEA Certificate of Registration, BA6015158, issued to Mohammed F. 
Abdel-Hameed, M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. I further order that 
any pending application to renew or modify the registration be, and it 
hereby is, denied. This order is effective December 24, 2009.

    Dated: November 17, 2009
Michele M. Leonhart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. E9-28189 Filed 11-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P