Yoon H. Choi, M.D.; Decision and Order, 49663-49665 [2017-23329]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26, 2017 / Notices
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
noon the next day pursuant to § 210.4(f)
of the Commission’s Rules of Practice
and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)).
Submissions should refer to the docket
number (‘‘Docket No. 3266’’) in a
prominent place on the cover page and/
or the first page. (See Handbook for
Electronic Filing Procedures, Electronic
Filing Procedures 1). Persons with
questions regarding filing should
contact the Secretary (202–205–2000).
Any person desiring to submit a
document to the Commission in
confidence must request confidential
treatment. All such requests should be
directed to the Secretary to the
Commission and must include a full
statement of the reasons why the
Commission should grant such
treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents
for which confidential treatment by the
Commission is properly sought will be
treated accordingly. All such requests
should be directed to the Secretary to
the Commission and must include a full
statement of the reasons why the
Commission should grant such
treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents
for which confidential treatment by the
Commission is properly sought will be
treated accordingly. All information,
including confidential business
information and documents for which
confidential treatment is properly
sought, submitted to the Commission for
purposes of this Investigation may be
disclosed to and used: (i) By the
Commission, its employees and Offices,
and contract personnel (a) for
developing or maintaining the records
of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in
internal investigations, audits, reviews,
and evaluations relating to the
programs, personnel, and operations of
the Commission including under 5
U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S.
government employees and contract
personnel,2 solely for cybersecurity
purposes. All nonconfidential written
submissions will be available for public
inspection at the Office of the Secretary
and on EDIS.3
This action is taken under the
authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337),
and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
1 Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures:
https://www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_on_
filing_procedures.pdf.
2 All contract personnel will sign appropriate
nondisclosure agreements.
3 Electronic Document Information System
(EDIS): https://edis.usitc.gov.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:29 Oct 25, 2017
Jkt 244001
Issued: October 20, 2017.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2017–23233 Filed 10–25–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. DEA–392]
Importer of Controlled Substances
Application: Galephar Pharmaceutical
Research, Inc.
ACTION:
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of
the affected basic classes, and
applicants therefore, may file written
comments on or objections to the
issuance of the proposed registration on
or before November 27, 2017. Such
persons may also file a written request
for a hearing on the application on or
before November 27, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should
be sent to: Drug Enforcement
Administration, Attention: DEA Federal
Register Representative/DRW, 8701
Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia
22152. All requests for hearing must be
sent to: Drug Enforcement
Administration, Attn: Administrator,
8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield,
Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing
should also be sent to: (1) Drug
Enforcement Administration, Attn:
Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette
Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and
(2) Drug Enforcement Administration,
Attn: DEA Federal Register
Representative/DRW, 8701 Morrissette
Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Attorney General has delegated his
authority under the Controlled
Substances Act to the Administrator of
the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to
exercise all necessary functions with
respect to the promulgation and
implementation of 21 CFR part 1301,
incident to the registration of
manufacturers, distributors, dispensers,
importers, and exporters of controlled
substances (other than final orders in
connection with suspension, denial, or
revocation of registration) has been
redelegated to the Assistant
Administrator of the DEA Diversion
Control Division (‘‘Assistant
Administrator’’) pursuant to section 7 of
28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR
1301.34(a), this is notice that on August
2, 2017, Galephar Pharmaceutical
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
49663
Research, Inc., #100 Carr 198, Industrial
Park, Juncos, Puerto Rico 00777–3873
applied to be registered as an importer
of hydromorphone (9150), a basic class
of controlled substance in schedule II.
The company plans to import the
listed controlled substance in finished
dosage form for clinical trials, research
and analytical purposes.
The import of this class of controlled
substance will be granted only for
analytical testing, research, and clinical
trials. This authorization does not
extend to the import of a finished FDA
approved or non-approved dosage form
for commercial sale.
Dated: October 18, 2017.
Demetra Ashley,
Acting Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017–23328 Filed 10–25–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 17–28]
Yoon H. Choi, M.D.; Decision and
Order
On April 4, 2017, the Assistant
Administrator, Division of Diversion
Control, issued an Order to Show Cause
to Yoon H. Choi, M.D. (Respondent), of
Brockton, Massachusetts. The Show
Cause Order proposed the revocation of
Respondent’s DEA Certificate of
Registration as a practitioner, on the
ground that he does not have authority
to dispense controlled substances in
Massachusetts, the State in which he is
registered with the Agency. Show Cause
Order, at 1.
As to the Agency’s jurisdiction, the
Show Cause Order alleged that
Respondent holds DEA Certificate of
Registration No. BC6966381, which
authorizes him to dispense controlled
substances in schedules II through V as
a practitioner, at the registered address
of Steward Medical Group, One Pearl
Street, Suite 2200, Brockton,
Massachusetts. Id. The Show Cause
Order alleged that this registration does
not expire until August 31, 2018. Id.
As to the substantive ground for the
proceeding, the Show Cause Order
alleged that ‘‘[o]n January 5, 2017, the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Board
of Registration in Medicine indefinitely
suspended [his] medical license’’ and
that ‘‘[t]his order remains in effect.’’ Id.
The Order thus alleged that Respondent
is ‘‘without authority to handle
controlled substances in . . .
Massachusetts, the [S]tate in which [he
is] registered,’’ that he is ‘‘required to
E:\FR\FM\26OCN1.SGM
26OCN1
49664
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26, 2017 / Notices
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
possess authority from a [S]tate in order
to obtain or retain a DEA registration,’’
and that the Agency ‘‘must revoke [his
registration] based upon [his] lack of
authority to handle controlled
substances in . . . Massachusetts in
violation of 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and
824(a)(3).’’ 1 Id. at 1–2.
The Show Cause Order also notified
Respondent of his right to request a
hearing on the allegations or to submit
a written statement while waiving his
right to a hearing, the procedure for
electing either option, and the
consequence for failing to elect either
option. Id. at 2. The Show Cause Order
also notified Respondent of his right to
submit a Corrective Action Plan under
21 U.S.C. 824(c)(2)(C). Id. at 2–3.
On May 8, 2017, Respondent, through
his counsel, timely requested a hearing.2
Resp.’s Hearing Request, at 1. The
matter was placed on the docket of the
Office of Administrative Law Judges and
assigned to ALJ Charles Wm. Dorman,
who issued a scheduling order the
following day. Order Granting Summary
Disposition, at 2. Under the ALJ’s order,
the Government was required to file any
motion for summary disposition by May
16, 2017 and Respondent was required
to file its opposition to the motion by
‘‘2:00 p.m. EDT on May 26, 2017.’’ Id.
On May 16, 2017, the Government
filed its motion for summary
disposition. Therein, the Government
maintained that it is undisputed that
Respondent lacks authority to dispense
controlled substances in Massachusetts,
the State in which he is registered, and
that therefore, he ‘‘no longer meets the
statutory definition of a practitioner.’’
Mot. for Summ. Disp., at 3–4. As
support for the motion, the Government
attached a copy of the Final Decision
and Order of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts Board of Registration in
Medicine, which indefinitely suspended
Respondent’s medical license, effective
January 5, 2017. The Government also
attached a printout from the Board’s
1 The Government’s allegation erroneously
suggests that Respondent’s mere holding of a
registration when his state authority had been
suspended constitutes a violation of these
provisions. These provisions are, however, grants of
authority to the Attorney General to grant an
application or revoke an existing registration. While
these provisions (along with 21 U.S.C. 802(21))
manifest that a practitioner must hold state
authority to obtain or maintain a registration, a
practitioner does not violate the CSA simply by
continuing to hold a registration after a State
suspends or revokes his medical license. If,
however, a practitioner prescribed controlled
substances without holding state authority, he
would violate a DEA regulation. See 21 CFR
1306.03(a)(1).
2 In his hearing request, Respondent also noted
that he had filed a Corrective Action Plan with the
Assistant Administrator, Diversion Control
Division. Hearing Request, at 1 n.1.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:29 Oct 25, 2017
Jkt 244001
Web site which it obtained on May 12,
2017 and which shows that
Respondent’s medical license was still
suspended, as well as a copy of
Respondent’s Corrective Action Plan
and his Certificate of Registration.
Respondent did not file any pleading
in response to the Government’s motion.
Order Granting Summary Disposition, at
2. Accordingly, on June 5, 2017, the ALJ
granted the Government’s motion,
finding it undisputed that Respondent’s
state ‘‘medical license is currently
suspended’’ and that he ‘‘lacks state
authorization to handle controlled
substances in Massachusetts,’’ the State
in which he is registered. Id. at 5.
Because ‘‘DEA precedent requires that
the Respondent cannot maintain a DEA
registration for any location in that
[S]tate,’’ the ALJ recommended that I
revoke his registration. Id. at 5–6.
Neither party filed exceptions to the
ALJ’s Order. Thereafter, on July 11,
2017, the ALJ forwarded the record to
my Office for Final Agency Action.
Upon review of the record, the former
Acting Administrator noted that while
Respondent had filed a Corrective
Action Plan the record contained no
evidence as to the Assistant
Administrator’s decision as to the
adequacy of Respondent’s Corrective
Action Plan. Accordingly, on September
22, 2017, the former Acting
Administrator issued an Order directing
the Government to notify my Office of
the status of Respondent’s Corrective
Action Plan, and in the event the
Assistant Administrator had issued a
decision on review of the Plan, to
provide a copy of that decision. The
former Acting Administrator provided
Respondent with the right to reply to
the Government’s submission no later
than five business days from the date of
receipt of the Government’s submission.
On September 25, 2017, the
Government submitted a copy of the
former Assistant Administrator’s letter
of June 12, 2017 rejecting Respondent’s
Corrective Action Plan.3 The former
Assistant Administrator also explained
that ‘‘there [was] no potential
modification of [Respondent’s Plan] that
could or would alter my decision.’’
Letter from Assistant Administrator,
Diversion Control Division, to
Respondent’s Counsel (June 12, 2017).
Respondent did not file a response to
the Government’s submission.
Having considered the record in its
entirety, I adopt the ALJ’s factual
finding that Respondent’s
Massachusetts medical license has been
suspended, as well as his legal
3 A copy of this letter does not appear to have
been previously provided to the ALJ.
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
conclusion that he currently lacks
authority to dispense controlled
substances in Massachusetts and thus,
he ‘‘cannot maintain’’ his DEA
registration. I also adopt the ALJ’s
recommended Order that I revoke his
registration. I make the following factual
findings.
Findings
Respondent is the holder of DEA
Certificate of Registration No.
BC6966381, pursuant to which he is
authorized to dispense controlled
substances in schedules II through V as
a practitioner, at the registered address
of Steward Medical Group Brockton,
One Pearl Street Suite 2200, Brockton,
MA 02301. GX 1. This registration does
not expire until August 31, 2018.
Respondent is also the holder of
Medical License No. 206555 issued by
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Board of Registration in Medicine. GX 2,
at Attachment B. However, on January
5, 2017, the Board issued a Final
Decision and Order which ‘‘indefinitely
suspended’’ his medical license. GX 2,
at Attachment A. According to the
Board’s Physician Profile Web page of
which I take Official Notice, see 5 U.S.C.
556(e),4 the suspension remains in effect
as of the date of this Decision and
Order.5
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, DEA
has held repeatedly 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, e.g.,
James L. Hooper, 76 FR 71371 (2011),
pet. for rev. denied, 481 Fed Appx. 826
(4th Cir. 2012).
This rule derives from the text of two
provisions of the CSA. First, Congress
defined ‘‘the term ‘practitioner’ [to]
mean[] a . . . physician . . . or other
4 Respondent may refute this finding by filing a
properly supported motion for reconsideration with
the Office of the Administrator within 10 business
days of the date of this Decision and Order.
5 While the Board’s Order provides that
‘‘Respondent may petition to stay [the] suspension
upon successful completion of a clinical skills
assessment by a board-approved entity and entry
into a Probation Agreement,’’ the suspension
remains in effect as of the date of this Order.
E:\FR\FM\26OCN1.SGM
26OCN1
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 206 / Thursday, October 26, 2017 / Notices
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 physician
possess state authority in order to be
deemed a practitioner under the Act,
DEA has held that revocation of a
practitioner’s registration is the
appropriate sanction whenever he is no
longer authorized to dispense controlled
substances under the laws of the State
in which he practices medicine. See,
e.g., 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); see
also Hooper v. Holder, 481 Fed. Appx.
at 828.
As a consequence of the Board’s Final
Decision and Order, Respondent is not
currently authorized to dispense
controlled substances in Massachusetts,
the State in which he is registered.
Because the CSA makes clear 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 both
obtaining and maintaining a
practitioner’s registration, it is of no
consequence that the Board’s Order
provided that he may petition to stay
the suspension upon meeting certain
conditions. Cf. Hooper v. Holder, 481 F.
App’x at 828 (upholding revocation of a
physician’s registration as based on a
reasonable interpretation of the CSA,
notwithstanding that the physician’s
medical license was subject to a
suspension of known duration); see also
James L. Hooper, 76 FR 71371, 71371–
72 (2011).6 As of this date, Respondent
is not currently authorized to dispense
controlled substances in Massachusetts,
and therefore, he is not entitled to
maintain his registration in that State.
Accordingly, I will order that his
registration be revoked and that any
pending application to renew his
registration, or for any other registration
6 By contrast, Respondent’s suspension is of
unknown duration.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:29 Oct 25, 2017
Jkt 244001
in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
be denied.
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 DEA Certificate of
Registration No. BC6966381 issued to
Yoon Choi, M.D., be, and it hereby is,
revoked. Pursuant to the authority
vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f), I
further order that any application of
Yoon Choi, M.D., to renew or modify
this registration, or for any other
registration in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, be, and it hereby is,
denied. This Order is effective
November 27, 2017.
Dated: October 17, 2017.
Robert W. Patterson,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017–23329 Filed 10–25–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Harinder Takyar, M.D.; Decision and
Order
On January 24, 2017, the Assistant
Administrator, Diversion Control
Division, Drug Enforcement
Administration (hereinafter, DEA or
Government), issued an Order to Show
Cause to Harinder Takyar, M.D.
(hereinafter, Respondent) of Mesa,
Arizona. GX 4. The Show Cause Order
proposed the revocation of
Respondent’s Certificate of Registration
on the grounds that Respondent does
‘‘not have authority to handle controlled
substances in the State of Arizona,’’ the
State in which he is registered, and that
Respondent’s ‘‘registration would be
inconsistent with the public interest.’’
GX 4, at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 823(f),
824(a)(3) and (4)).
As to the Agency’s jurisdiction, the
Show Cause Order alleged that
Respondent holds DEA Certificate of
Registration No. BT9321150 which
authorizes him to dispense controlled
substances in schedules II through V as
a practitioner at the registered address
of 9341 East McKellips Road, Mesa,
Arizona 85207. GX 4, at 1. See also GX
1 (Controlled Substance Registration
Certificate) (including ‘‘Reform
Physicians’’) and GX 2, at 1
(Certification of Registration History)
(9341 E McKellips Road, Mesa, AZ
85207–8520). The Show Cause Order
alleged that this registration expires on
November 30, 2019. GX 4, at 1. See also
GX 2, at 1.
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
49665
As the first substantive ground for the
proceeding, the Show Cause Order
alleged that Respondent is ‘‘currently
without authority to handle controlled
substances in Arizona.’’ GX 4, at 1. It
alleged that, on December 21, 2016,
Respondent ‘‘entered into an Interim
Consent Agreement for Practice
Restriction with the Arizona Medical
Board’’ which ‘‘prohibited [Respondent]
from engaging in the practice of
medicine in the State of Arizona . . .
until he applies to the Executive
Director and receives permission to do
so.’’ GX 4, at 1 and GX 3, at 5 (Interim
Consent Agreement For Practice
Restriction), respectively. The Show
Cause Order alleged that Respondent
was ‘‘still currently prohibited from
practicing medicine in the state in
which . . . [he is] registered with the
DEA . . . [and] therefore, the DEA must
revoke . . . [his] DEA . . . [registration]
based upon . . . [his] lack of authority
to handle controlled substances in the
State of Arizona.’’ GX 4, at 2 (citing 21
U.S.C. 802(21), 823(f), and 824(a)(3)).
As the second substantive ground for
the proceeding, the Show Cause Order
alleged that the Arizona Attorney
General’s Office and the Pinal County
(Arizona) Task Force ‘‘initiated an
investigation of . . . [Respondent’s]
medical practice after receiving
information from a cooperating source
that . . . [he] routinely prescribed large
quantities of oxycodone, a Schedule II
controlled substance, without
performing an examination.’’ GX 4, at 2.
After summarizing two law enforcement
officers’ undercover visits to
Respondent’s medical practice, the
Show Cause Order alleged that,
concerning the first undercover officer,
Respondent prescribed schedule II and
IV controlled substances ‘‘after
conducting only a cursory medical
examination[, or no physical
examination but falsely documenting a
full physical exam] . . . without
inquiring about whether the agent
experienced sleeplessness, anxiety, or
panic[, and without] . . . properly
execut[ing] . . . a prescription . . . as
required by 21 CFR 1306.05(a) by not
listing the full address of the patient on
the face of the prescription . . . [or]
maintain[ing] an adequate patient
chart.’’ GX 4, at 2–3.
Concerning the second undercover
officer, the Show Cause Order alleged
that Respondent prescribed a schedule
II controlled substance the first time
‘‘despite the agent informing . . .
[Respondent] that he felt no pain during
. . . [Respondent’s] brief examination of
him . . . [, and a second time without]
conduct[ing] a physical exam . . . and
falsely documenting a full physical
E:\FR\FM\26OCN1.SGM
26OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 206 (Thursday, October 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49663-49665]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23329]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 17-28]
Yoon H. Choi, M.D.; Decision and Order
On April 4, 2017, the Assistant Administrator, Division of
Diversion Control, issued an Order to Show Cause to Yoon H. Choi, M.D.
(Respondent), of Brockton, Massachusetts. The Show Cause Order proposed
the revocation of Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration as a
practitioner, on the ground that he does not have authority to dispense
controlled substances in Massachusetts, the State in which he is
registered with the Agency. Show Cause Order, at 1.
As to the Agency's jurisdiction, the Show Cause Order alleged that
Respondent holds DEA Certificate of Registration No. BC6966381, which
authorizes him to dispense controlled substances in schedules II
through V as a practitioner, at the registered address of Steward
Medical Group, One Pearl Street, Suite 2200, Brockton, Massachusetts.
Id. The Show Cause Order alleged that this registration does not expire
until August 31, 2018. Id.
As to the substantive ground for the proceeding, the Show Cause
Order alleged that ``[o]n January 5, 2017, the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine indefinitely suspended
[his] medical license'' and that ``[t]his order remains in effect.''
Id. The Order thus alleged that Respondent is ``without authority to
handle controlled substances in . . . Massachusetts, the [S]tate in
which [he is] registered,'' that he is ``required to
[[Page 49664]]
possess authority from a [S]tate in order to obtain or retain a DEA
registration,'' and that the Agency ``must revoke [his registration]
based upon [his] lack of authority to handle controlled substances in .
. . Massachusetts in violation of 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a)(3).'' \1\
Id. at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Government's allegation erroneously suggests that
Respondent's mere holding of a registration when his state authority
had been suspended constitutes a violation of these provisions.
These provisions are, however, grants of authority to the Attorney
General to grant an application or revoke an existing registration.
While these provisions (along with 21 U.S.C. 802(21)) manifest that
a practitioner must hold state authority to obtain or maintain a
registration, a practitioner does not violate the CSA simply by
continuing to hold a registration after a State suspends or revokes
his medical license. If, however, a practitioner prescribed
controlled substances without holding state authority, he would
violate a DEA regulation. See 21 CFR 1306.03(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Show Cause Order also notified Respondent of his right to
request a hearing on the allegations or to submit a written statement
while waiving his right to a hearing, the procedure for electing either
option, and the consequence for failing to elect either option. Id. at
2. The Show Cause Order also notified Respondent of his right to submit
a Corrective Action Plan under 21 U.S.C. 824(c)(2)(C). Id. at 2-3.
On May 8, 2017, Respondent, through his counsel, timely requested a
hearing.\2\ Resp.'s Hearing Request, at 1. The matter was placed on the
docket of the Office of Administrative Law Judges and assigned to ALJ
Charles Wm. Dorman, who issued a scheduling order the following day.
Order Granting Summary Disposition, at 2. Under the ALJ's order, the
Government was required to file any motion for summary disposition by
May 16, 2017 and Respondent was required to file its opposition to the
motion by ``2:00 p.m. EDT on May 26, 2017.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In his hearing request, Respondent also noted that he had
filed a Corrective Action Plan with the Assistant Administrator,
Diversion Control Division. Hearing Request, at 1 n.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 16, 2017, the Government filed its motion for summary
disposition. Therein, the Government maintained that it is undisputed
that Respondent lacks authority to dispense controlled substances in
Massachusetts, the State in which he is registered, and that therefore,
he ``no longer meets the statutory definition of a practitioner.'' Mot.
for Summ. Disp., at 3-4. As support for the motion, the Government
attached a copy of the Final Decision and Order of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine, which indefinitely
suspended Respondent's medical license, effective January 5, 2017. The
Government also attached a printout from the Board's Web site which it
obtained on May 12, 2017 and which shows that Respondent's medical
license was still suspended, as well as a copy of Respondent's
Corrective Action Plan and his Certificate of Registration.
Respondent did not file any pleading in response to the
Government's motion. Order Granting Summary Disposition, at 2.
Accordingly, on June 5, 2017, the ALJ granted the Government's motion,
finding it undisputed that Respondent's state ``medical license is
currently suspended'' and that he ``lacks state authorization to handle
controlled substances in Massachusetts,'' the State in which he is
registered. Id. at 5. Because ``DEA precedent requires that the
Respondent cannot maintain a DEA registration for any location in that
[S]tate,'' the ALJ recommended that I revoke his registration. Id. at
5-6.
Neither party filed exceptions to the ALJ's Order. Thereafter, on
July 11, 2017, the ALJ forwarded the record to my Office for Final
Agency Action.
Upon review of the record, the former Acting Administrator noted
that while Respondent had filed a Corrective Action Plan the record
contained no evidence as to the Assistant Administrator's decision as
to the adequacy of Respondent's Corrective Action Plan. Accordingly, on
September 22, 2017, the former Acting Administrator issued an Order
directing the Government to notify my Office of the status of
Respondent's Corrective Action Plan, and in the event the Assistant
Administrator had issued a decision on review of the Plan, to provide a
copy of that decision. The former Acting Administrator provided
Respondent with the right to reply to the Government's submission no
later than five business days from the date of receipt of the
Government's submission.
On September 25, 2017, the Government submitted a copy of the
former Assistant Administrator's letter of June 12, 2017 rejecting
Respondent's Corrective Action Plan.\3\ The former Assistant
Administrator also explained that ``there [was] no potential
modification of [Respondent's Plan] that could or would alter my
decision.'' Letter from Assistant Administrator, Diversion Control
Division, to Respondent's Counsel (June 12, 2017). Respondent did not
file a response to the Government's submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ A copy of this letter does not appear to have been
previously provided to the ALJ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having considered the record in its entirety, I adopt the ALJ's
factual finding that Respondent's Massachusetts medical license has
been suspended, as well as his legal conclusion that he currently lacks
authority to dispense controlled substances in Massachusetts and thus,
he ``cannot maintain'' his DEA registration. I also adopt the ALJ's
recommended Order that I revoke his registration. I make the following
factual findings.
Findings
Respondent is the holder of DEA Certificate of Registration No.
BC6966381, pursuant to which he is authorized to dispense controlled
substances in schedules II through V as a practitioner, at the
registered address of Steward Medical Group Brockton, One Pearl Street
Suite 2200, Brockton, MA 02301. GX 1. This registration does not expire
until August 31, 2018.
Respondent is also the holder of Medical License No. 206555 issued
by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine.
GX 2, at Attachment B. However, on January 5, 2017, the Board issued a
Final Decision and Order which ``indefinitely suspended'' his medical
license. GX 2, at Attachment A. According to the Board's Physician
Profile Web page of which I take Official Notice, see 5 U.S.C.
556(e),\4\ the suspension remains in effect as of the date of this
Decision and Order.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Respondent may refute this finding by filing a properly
supported motion for reconsideration with the Office of the
Administrator within 10 business days of the date of this Decision
and Order.
\5\ While the Board's Order provides that ``Respondent may
petition to stay [the] suspension upon successful completion of a
clinical skills assessment by a board-approved entity and entry into
a Probation Agreement,'' the suspension remains in effect as of the
date of this Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, DEA has held repeatedly 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, e.g., James L. Hooper, 76 FR 71371
(2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 Fed Appx. 826 (4th Cir. 2012).
This rule derives from the text of two provisions of the CSA.
First, Congress defined ``the term `practitioner' [to] mean[] a . . .
physician . . . or other
[[Page 49665]]
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 physician possess state authority in order
to be deemed a practitioner under the Act, DEA has held that revocation
of a practitioner's registration is the appropriate sanction whenever
he is no longer authorized to dispense controlled substances under the
laws of the State in which he practices medicine. See, e.g., 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); see also Hooper v. Holder, 481
Fed. Appx. at 828.
As a consequence of the Board's Final Decision and Order,
Respondent is not currently authorized to dispense controlled
substances in Massachusetts, the State in which he is registered.
Because the CSA makes clear 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 both obtaining and maintaining a practitioner's
registration, it is of no consequence that the Board's Order provided
that he may petition to stay the suspension upon meeting certain
conditions. Cf. Hooper v. Holder, 481 F. App'x at 828 (upholding
revocation of a physician's registration as based on a reasonable
interpretation of the CSA, notwithstanding that the physician's medical
license was subject to a suspension of known duration); see also James
L. Hooper, 76 FR 71371, 71371-72 (2011).\6\ As of this date, Respondent
is not currently authorized to dispense controlled substances in
Massachusetts, and therefore, he is not entitled to maintain his
registration in that State. Accordingly, I will order that his
registration be revoked and that any pending application to renew his
registration, or for any other registration in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts be denied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ By contrast, Respondent's suspension is of unknown duration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 DEA Certificate of Registration No.
BC6966381 issued to Yoon Choi, M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked.
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f), I further
order that any application of Yoon Choi, M.D., to renew or modify this
registration, or for any other registration in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, be, and it hereby is, denied. This Order is effective
November 27, 2017.
Dated: October 17, 2017.
Robert W. Patterson,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017-23329 Filed 10-25-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
