Dwayne LaFrantz Wilson, M.D.; Revocation of Registration, 8749-8750 [2010-3766]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2010 / Notices Dollar amount to be adjusted 547(c)(9)—preferences, trustee may not avoid a transfer if, in a case filed by a debtor whose debts are not primarily consumer debts, the aggregate value of property is less than. 707(b)—dismissal of a case or conversion to a case under chapter 11 or 13 (means test) (1)—in paragraph (2)(A)(i)(I) ............................................................ (2)—in paragraph (2)(A)(i)(II) ........................................................... (3)—in paragraph (2)(A)(ii)(IV) ......................................................... (4)—in paragraph (2)(B)(iv)(I) .......................................................... (5)—in paragraph (2)(B)(iv)(II) ......................................................... (6)—in paragraph (5)(B) ................................................................... (7)—in paragraph 6(C) ..................................................................... (8)—in paragraph 7(A)(iii) ................................................................ 1322(d)(1)(c) & (2)(c)—contents of chapter 13 plan, monthly income ... 1325(b)(3) & (b)(4)—chapter 13 confirmation of plan, disposable income. 1326(b)(3)(B)—payments to former chapter 7 trustee ........................... [FR Doc. 2010–3807 Filed 2–24–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 2210–55–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Dwayne LaFrantz Wilson, M.D.; Revocation of Registration On October 22, 2008, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to Show Cause to Dwayne LaFrantz Wilson, M.D. (Respondent), of Providence, Rhode Island. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Respondent’s DEA Certificate of Registration, BW6030857, which authorizes him to dispense controlled substances as a practitioner, and the denial of any pending applications to renew or modify his registration, on the ground that his Rhode Island medical license had been suspended, and that he therefore lacks authority to handle controlled substances under the laws of Rhode Island, the State in which he is registered. Show Cause Order at 1. On October 23, 2008, the Government initially attempted to serve the Show Cause Order on Respondent by certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to him at his registered address. However, the mailing was returned by the Post Office, with a sticker attached which stated: ‘‘NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED, UNABLE TO FORWARD.’’ Thereafter, a DEA Investigator (DI) contacted the Rhode Island Board of Medicine in an attempt to obtain Respondent’s address. Declaration of Thomas Cook at 1. A board official indicated that he did not know Respondent’s current address, but had heard that he had moved to somewhere VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:34 Feb 24, 2010 Jkt 220001 Frm 00105 Fmt 4703 New (adjusted) dollar amount 5,475 .............................................. 5,850 6,575 .............................................. 10,950 ............................................ 1,650 .............................................. 6,575 .............................................. 10,950 ............................................ 1,100 .............................................. 575 ................................................. 575 ................................................. 575 (each time it appears) ............ 575 (each time it appears) ............ 7,025 11,725 1,775 7,025 11,725 1,175 625 625 625 (each time it appears). 625 (each time it appears). 25 ................................................... 25 in the Southwestern United States. Id. The DI also unsuccessfully searched for Respondent through various online databases but could not find any information regarding the latter’s whereabouts. Id. The DI also tried to contact him through the e-mail address he had previously provided to DEA; Respondent did not, however, reply to the e-mail. Id. Finally, the DI contacted the owner of the apartment which Respondent had rented and used as his registered location. Id. at 2. Respondent’s ex-landlord advised that Respondent had moved in April 2008 and did not leave a forwarding address. Id. Accordingly, the Government has been unable to provide actual notice of this proceeding to Respondent. In Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 315 (1950), the Supreme Court held that ‘‘when notice is a person’s due * * * [t]he means employed must be such as one desirous of actually informing the absentee might reasonably adopt to accomplish it.’’ More recently, in a case in which a State attempted to serve a property owner with notice of a tax sale by certified mail which was returned as unclaimed, the Court explained that ‘‘when a letter is returned by the post office, the sender will ordinarily attempt to resend it, if it is practicable to do so.’’ Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220, 230 (2006) (citing Small v. United States, 136 F.3d 1334, 1337 (DC Cir. 1998)). In Jones, the Court reaffirmed, however, that ‘‘[d]ue process does not require that a property owner receive actual notice before the government may take his property.’’ 547 U.S. at 226 (citing Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161, 170 (2002)). Moreover, due process does not require ‘‘heroic efforts,’’ Dusenbery, 534 U.S. at 170, but rather, only that ‘‘the government * * * provide ‘notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise PO 00000 8749 Sfmt 4703 interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.’ ’’ 547 U.S. at 226 (quoting Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314). Applying these standards, I hold that the Government has satisfied the requirements of due process, notwithstanding that it has been unable to serve Respondent. In contrast to Jones, the Government was not required to resend the Show Cause Order by regular mail because the original certified mailing was not returned as unclaimed, but rather as undeliverable (apparently because Respondent did not leave a forwarding address with the Post Office). As the Court reasoned in Jones, ‘‘if there were no reasonable additional steps the government could have taken upon return of the unclaimed notice letter, it cannot be faulted for doing nothing.’’ 547 U.S. at 234. Moreover, the Government made substantial efforts to locate Respondent. Even though its efforts were unsuccessful, they were ‘‘reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise [Respondent] of the pendency of the action,’’ and thus satisfy due process. Dusenbery, 534 U.S. at 173 (quoting Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314). I further hold that this matter may proceed in absentia. I therefore enter this Decision and Final Order without a hearing based on the evidence contained in the record submitted by the Government. I make the following findings. Findings Respondent is the holder of DEA Certificate or Registration, BW6030857, which authorizes him to dispense controlled substances in schedules II through V as a practitioner. Respondent’s registered location is 388 South Main St., #56, Providence, Rhode Island; his registration does not expire until May 31, 2010. E:\FR\FM\25FEN1.SGM 25FEN1 8750 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2010 / Notices jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Respondent also holds both an allopathic physician’s license and a controlled substance registration as an allopathic physician which have been issued by the Rhode Island Board of Medical Licensure and Discipline. On January 24, 2008, Respondent entered into a consent order with the Rhode Island Board; the order suspended Respondent’s Rhode Island licenses based on the July 30, 2007 order of the New York Department of Health, State Board of Professional Medical Conduct, which had revoked his New York medical license on fourteen different grounds. The Rhode Island Board’s order became effective on February 13, 2008. According to the online records of the Rhode Island Board, the suspension remains in effect as of the date of this Decision and Final Order. The Rhode Island Board’s online records further indicate that Respondent’s state controlled substances registration is inactive, because a prerequisite (i.e., his state medical license) is inactive. I therefore find that Respondent is not currently authorized under Rhode Island law to dispense controlled substances. Discussion Under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 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) (‘‘[t]he term ‘practitioner’ means a physician * * * 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 * * * 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 handle controlled substances is an essential condition for holding a DEA registration. Accordingly, DEA has held repeatedly that the CSA requires the revocation of a registration issued to a practitioner whose state license has been suspended or revoked. Scott Sandarg, 74 FR 17528, 17529 (2009); Sheran Arden Yeates, 71 FR 39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick A. Ricci, 58 FR 51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby Watts, 53 FR 11919, 11920 (1988). See also 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) (authorizing the revocation of a registration ‘‘upon a finding that the registrant * * * has had his State license or registration suspended [or] revoked * * * and is no VerDate Nov<24>2008 16:34 Feb 24, 2010 Jkt 220001 longer authorized by State law to engage in the * * * distribution [or] dispensing of controlled substances’’). As found above, Respondent currently lacks authority to dispense controlled substances in Rhode Island, the State in which he holds his DEA registration. Because Respondent no longer meets the CSA’s fundamental requirement for holding a registration, see 21 U.S.C. 823(f), his registration will be revoked. Order Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) & 824(a), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b) & 0.104, I order that DEA Certificate of Registration, BW6030857, issued to Dwayne LaFrantz Wilson, M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. I further order that any pending application of Dwayne LaFrantz Wilson, M.D., to renew or modify his registration, be, and it hereby is, denied. This Order is effective March 29, 2010. Dated: February 13, 2010. Michele M. Leonhart, Deputy Administrator. [FR Doc. 2010–3766 Filed 2–24–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–09–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Submission for OMB Review: Comment Request February 19, 2010. The Department of Labor (DOL) hereby announces the submission of the following public information collection requests (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). A copy of each ICR, with applicable supporting documentation; including among other things a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained from the RegInfo.gov Web site at https://www.reginfo.gov/ public/do/PRAMain or by contacting Darrin King on 202–693–4129 (this is not a toll-free number)/e-mail: DOL_PRA_PUBLIC@dol.gov. Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the Department of Labor—Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Telephone: 202–395–7316/Fax: 202–395–5806 (these are not toll-free PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 numbers), e-mail: OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov within 30 days from the date of this publication in the Federal Register. In order to ensure the appropriate consideration, comments should reference the OMB Control Number (see below). The OMB is particularly interested in comments which: • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Agency: Employee Benefits Security Administration. Type of Review: Extension without change of a currently approved collection. Title of Collection: Annual Report for Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangements (Form M–1). OMB Control Number: 1210–0116. Affected Public: Private sector. Estimated Number of Respondents: 464. Total Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 62. Total Estimated Annual Costs Burden (excludes hourly wage costs): $44,000. Description: The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), codified as Part 7 of Title I of the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), was enacted to improve the portability and continuity of health care coverage for participants and beneficiaries of group health plans. To insure compliance with Part 7, section 101(g) of ERISA, HIPAA permits the Secretary of Labor (the Secretary) to require multiple employer welfare arrangements (MEWAs), as defined in section 3(40) of ERISA, to report to the Secretary in such form and manner as the Secretary might determine. The Department of Labor (the Department) published a final rule providing for such reporting on an annual basis, together with a form (Form M–1) to be used by E:\FR\FM\25FEN1.SGM 25FEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 37 (Thursday, February 25, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8749-8750]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-3766]


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

 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Dwayne LaFrantz Wilson, M.D.; Revocation of Registration

    On October 22, 2008, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to 
Show Cause to Dwayne LaFrantz Wilson, M.D. (Respondent), of Providence, 
Rhode Island. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of 
Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration, BW6030857, which 
authorizes him to dispense controlled substances as a practitioner, and 
the denial of any pending applications to renew or modify his 
registration, on the ground that his Rhode Island medical license had 
been suspended, and that he therefore lacks authority to handle 
controlled substances under the laws of Rhode Island, the State in 
which he is registered. Show Cause Order at 1.
    On October 23, 2008, the Government initially attempted to serve 
the Show Cause Order on Respondent by certified mail, return receipt 
requested, addressed to him at his registered address. However, the 
mailing was returned by the Post Office, with a sticker attached which 
stated: ``NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED, UNABLE TO FORWARD.''
    Thereafter, a DEA Investigator (DI) contacted the Rhode Island 
Board of Medicine in an attempt to obtain Respondent's address. 
Declaration of Thomas Cook at 1. A board official indicated that he did 
not know Respondent's current address, but had heard that he had moved 
to somewhere in the Southwestern United States. Id. The DI also 
unsuccessfully searched for Respondent through various online databases 
but could not find any information regarding the latter's whereabouts. 
Id. The DI also tried to contact him through the e-mail address he had 
previously provided to DEA; Respondent did not, however, reply to the 
e-mail. Id. Finally, the DI contacted the owner of the apartment which 
Respondent had rented and used as his registered location. Id. at 2. 
Respondent's ex-landlord advised that Respondent had moved in April 
2008 and did not leave a forwarding address. Id. Accordingly, the 
Government has been unable to provide actual notice of this proceeding 
to Respondent.
    In Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 315 
(1950), the Supreme Court held that ``when notice is a person's due * * 
* [t]he means employed must be such as one desirous of actually 
informing the absentee might reasonably adopt to accomplish it.'' More 
recently, in a case in which a State attempted to serve a property 
owner with notice of a tax sale by certified mail which was returned as 
unclaimed, the Court explained that ``when a letter is returned by the 
post office, the sender will ordinarily attempt to resend it, if it is 
practicable to do so.'' Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220, 230 (2006) 
(citing Small v. United States, 136 F.3d 1334, 1337 (DC Cir. 1998)).
    In Jones, the Court reaffirmed, however, that ``[d]ue process does 
not require that a property owner receive actual notice before the 
government may take his property.'' 547 U.S. at 226 (citing Dusenbery 
v. United States, 534 U.S. 161, 170 (2002)). Moreover, due process does 
not require ``heroic efforts,'' Dusenbery, 534 U.S. at 170, but rather, 
only that ``the government * * * provide `notice reasonably calculated, 
under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the 
pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their 
objections.' '' 547 U.S. at 226 (quoting Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314).
    Applying these standards, I hold that the Government has satisfied 
the requirements of due process, notwithstanding that it has been 
unable to serve Respondent. In contrast to Jones, the Government was 
not required to resend the Show Cause Order by regular mail because the 
original certified mailing was not returned as unclaimed, but rather as 
undeliverable (apparently because Respondent did not leave a forwarding 
address with the Post Office). As the Court reasoned in Jones, ``if 
there were no reasonable additional steps the government could have 
taken upon return of the unclaimed notice letter, it cannot be faulted 
for doing nothing.'' 547 U.S. at 234. Moreover, the Government made 
substantial efforts to locate Respondent. Even though its efforts were 
unsuccessful, they were ``reasonably calculated, under all the 
circumstances, to apprise [Respondent] of the pendency of the action,'' 
and thus satisfy due process. Dusenbery, 534 U.S. at 173 (quoting 
Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314).
    I further hold that this matter may proceed in absentia. I 
therefore enter this Decision and Final Order without a hearing based 
on the evidence contained in the record submitted by the Government. I 
make the following findings.

Findings

    Respondent is the holder of DEA Certificate or Registration, 
BW6030857, which authorizes him to dispense controlled substances in 
schedules II through V as a practitioner. Respondent's registered 
location is 388 South Main St., 56, Providence, Rhode Island; 
his registration does not expire until May 31, 2010.

[[Page 8750]]

    Respondent also holds both an allopathic physician's license and a 
controlled substance registration as an allopathic physician which have 
been issued by the Rhode Island Board of Medical Licensure and 
Discipline. On January 24, 2008, Respondent entered into a consent 
order with the Rhode Island Board; the order suspended Respondent's 
Rhode Island licenses based on the July 30, 2007 order of the New York 
Department of Health, State Board of Professional Medical Conduct, 
which had revoked his New York medical license on fourteen different 
grounds. The Rhode Island Board's order became effective on February 
13, 2008. According to the online records of the Rhode Island Board, 
the suspension remains in effect as of the date of this Decision and 
Final Order. The Rhode Island Board's online records further indicate 
that Respondent's state controlled substances registration is inactive, 
because a prerequisite (i.e., his state medical license) is inactive. I 
therefore find that Respondent is not currently authorized under Rhode 
Island law to dispense controlled substances.

Discussion

    Under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 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) (``[t]he term `practitioner' means 
a physician * * * 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. Sec.  823(f) (``The Attorney 
General shall register practitioners * * * 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 handle controlled substances is 
an essential condition for holding a DEA registration.
    Accordingly, DEA has held repeatedly that the CSA requires the 
revocation of a registration issued to a practitioner whose state 
license has been suspended or revoked. Scott Sandarg, 74 FR 17528, 
17529 (2009); Sheran Arden Yeates, 71 FR 39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick 
A. Ricci, 58 FR 51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby Watts, 53 FR 11919, 11920 
(1988). See also 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) (authorizing the revocation of 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'').
    As found above, Respondent currently lacks authority to dispense 
controlled substances in Rhode Island, the State in which he holds his 
DEA registration. Because Respondent no longer meets the CSA's 
fundamental requirement for holding a registration, see 21 U.S.C. 
823(f), his registration will be revoked.

Order

    Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) & 
824(a), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b) & 0.104, I order that DEA 
Certificate of Registration, BW6030857, issued to Dwayne LaFrantz 
Wilson, M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. I further order that any 
pending application of Dwayne LaFrantz Wilson, M.D., to renew or modify 
his registration, be, and it hereby is, denied. This Order is effective 
March 29, 2010.

    Dated: February 13, 2010.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-3766 Filed 2-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.