Kofi E. Shaw-Taylor, M.D. Decision and Order, 56992-56993 [2017-25922]
Download as PDF
56992
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 230 / Friday, December 1, 2017 / Notices
Authority
We provide this notice under section
10 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
and NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).
Scott A. Sobiech,
Acting Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and
Wildlife Office, Carlsbad, California.
[FR Doc. 2017–25889 Filed 11–30–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Kofi E. Shaw-Taylor, M.D. Decision and
Order
On June 12, 2017, the Assistant
Administrator, Diversion Control
Division, Drug Enforcement
Administration (hereinafter, DEA or
Government), issued an Order to Show
Cause to Kofi E. Shaw-Taylor, M.D.
(hereinafter, Respondent) of Baltimore,
Maryland. GX 1. The Show Cause Order
proposed the revocation of
Respondent’s Certificate of Registration
on the ground that Respondent does
‘‘not have authority to handle controlled
substances in the State of Maryland,’’
the State in which he is registered. GX
1, at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and
§ 824(a)(3)).
As to the Agency’s jurisdiction, the
Show Cause Order alleged that
Respondent holds DEA Certificate of
Registration No. AS2145476 which
authorizes him to dispense controlled
substances in schedules II through V as
a practitioner at the registered address
of 4419 Falls Road, Suite C, Baltimore,
Maryland 21211. GX 1, at 1. See also GX
2 (Controlled Substance Registration
Certificate) (including ‘‘Westside
Medical Group’’). The Show Cause
Order alleged that this registration
expires on February 29, 2020. GX 1, at
1. See also GX 2.
As the substantive ground for the
proceeding, the Show Cause Order
alleged that Respondent is ‘‘without
authority to handle controlled
substances in Maryland, the state in
which . . . [he is] registered with the
DEA.’’ GX 1, at 1. It further alleged that,
on May 9, 2017, Respondent’s
‘‘authority to prescribe and administer
controlled substances in the State of
Maryland was suspended.’’ GX 1, at 1.
See also GX 3 (Maryland State Board of
Physicians Order of Summary
Suspension of License to Practice
Medicine, hereinafter Order of
Summary Suspension). The Show Cause
Order alleged that ‘‘DEA must revoke
. . . [his] DEA . . . [registration] based
upon . . . [his] lack of authority to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:44 Nov 30, 2017
Jkt 244001
handle controlled substances in the
State of Maryland.’’ GX 1, at 1 (citing 21
U.S.C. 802(21), 823(f)(1), and 824(a)(3)).
The Show Cause Order 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 procedures for
electing each option, and the
consequences for failing to elect either
option. GX 1, at 2 (citing 21 CFR
1301.43). The Show Cause Order also
notified Respondent of the opportunity
to submit a corrective action plan. GX
1, at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(c)(2)(C)).
By letter dated July 17, 2017
addressed to the Office of the [DEA]
Administrative Law Judges,
Respondent, by his counsel, requested a
hearing. GX 5, at 1. The letter admitted
that the Maryland State Board of
Physicians issued an Order of Summary
Suspension of Respondent’s license to
practice medicine on May 9, 2017. Id.
According to the letter, Respondent was
challenging that Order ‘‘on grounds of
abuse of and lack of due process.’’ Id.
On July 24, 2017, the Chief
Administrative Law Judge, John J.
Mulrooney, II, ordered the Government
to file proof of service and evidence in
support of its allegation that Respondent
lacked State authority to practice
medicine. GX 6, at 1 (Order Directing
the Filing of Proof of Service and
Government Evidence of Lack of State
Authority Allegation and Briefing
Schedule). The Order also established a
briefing schedule ‘‘if the Government
files a motion based on timeliness of the
hearing request and/or a motion for
summary disposition based on its
allegation that the Respondent lacks
state authority to handle controlled
substances.’’ Id. at 1–2.
By submission dated July 28, 2017,
Respondent, by his counsel, submitted
an ‘‘Order to Show Cause Waiver of
Hearing and Statement on the Matter.’’
GX 7. According to that submission,
Respondent’s counsel stated that
Respondent was served with the Show
Cause Order on June 20, 2017. GX 7, at
1. He also stated that Respondent was
waiving a hearing on the Show Cause
Order. Id. Further, the submission
admitted that the Maryland State Board
of Physicians issued an Order of
Summary Suspension of Respondent’s
license to practice medicine,
characterizing the Order as being ‘‘based
on alleged but unproven charges.’’ Id. It
expressed ‘‘our fervent belief that the
Respondent shall prevail in this matter
and his Medical license reinstated.’’ Id.
It asked that ‘‘the DEA suspend the
revocation’’ of Respondent’s registration
‘‘pending the restoration of the Medical
license to save the Respondent the
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
inconvenience, trauma and the lengthy
process of reapplication of this same
license.’’ Id.
By Order dated August 2, 2017, the
Chief Administrative Law Judge
terminated the proceedings based on
Respondent’s ‘‘Order to Show Cause
Waiver of Hearing and Statement on the
Matter.’’ GX 8, at 1 (Order Terminating
Proceedings).
On August 2, 2017, the Government
submitted a Request for Final Agency
Action and an evidentiary record to
support the Show Cause Order’s
allegation.
I find that the Government’s service of
the Show Cause Order on Respondent
was legally sufficient. I find that, by
letter from his counsel dated July 17,
2017, Respondent requested a hearing. I
find that, by submission of his counsel
dated July 28, 2017, Respondent sought
to file an ‘‘Order to Show Cause Waiver
of Hearing and Statement on the
Matter.’’ Respondent was entitled to
waive his right to a hearing and to fail
to follow up on his request for a hearing.
See 21 CFR 1301.43(d). DEA
regulations, however, limit the time for
Respondent to exercise his right to
submit a written statement of position to
‘‘the period permitted for filing a
request for a hearing or a notice of
appearance,’’ absent a showing of good
cause. 21 CFR 1301.43(c). Respondent’s
‘‘Statement on the Matter’’ was not filed
within the period specified in the
regulation, and Respondent did not
make a showing of good cause to excuse
the untimeliness. I decline, therefore, to
consider any factual assertions or
arguments that Respondent raised in the
‘‘Statement on the Matter.’’ 1 I issue this
Decision and Order based on the record
submitted by the Government and on
Respondent’s request for a hearing. 21
CFR 1301.43(e).
Findings of Fact
Respondent’s DEA Registration
Respondent currently holds DEA
practitioner registration AS2145476
authorizing him to dispense controlled
substances in schedules II through V at
the address of Westside Medical Group,
4419 Falls Road, Suite C, Baltimore,
Maryland 21211. GX 1, at 1; GX 2. This
registration expires on February 29,
2020. Id.
1 Respondent’s ‘‘Statement on the Matter’’ did not
claim that Respondent’s medical license had been
reinstated. To the contrary, it reiterated
Respondent’s admission that the Maryland State
Board of Physicians issued an Order of Summary
Suspension of Respondent’s medical license.
E:\FR\FM\01DEN1.SGM
01DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 230 / Friday, December 1, 2017 / Notices
The Status of Respondent’s State
License
On May 9, 2017, the Executive
Director of the Maryland State Board of
Physicians signed a 34-page Order
summarily suspending Respondent’s
license to practice medicine. GX 3. The
Order of Summary Suspension
discussed numerous complaints against
Respondent, including complaints about
Respondent’s controlled substance
prescribing practices, the conclusions of
an independent peer review agency that
Respondent did not meet quality
standards for pain medicine, and
allegations concerning Respondent’s
unprofessional conduct. Id. The Order
of Summary Suspension concluded that
Respondent acted unprofessionally in
his pain medicine practice, among other
areas, and determined that the public
health, safety, or welfare imperatively
required the emergency action of the
suspension of Respondent’s medical
license. Id. at 31–32. The terms of the
Order of Summary Suspension included
the requirement that Respondent
surrender his original Maryland license
D26832 and his current license renewal
certificate. Id. at 33.
On July 11, 2017, the DEA Diversion
Investigator assigned to the
investigation of Respondent
(hereinafter, DI) signed a Declaration.
GX 4. In that Declaration, the DI stated
that Respondent’s license to practice
medicine in Maryland was suspended
effective May 9, 2017 and that
Respondent ‘‘currently has no authority
to practice medicine in Maryland.’’ Id.
at 1.
Respondent’s hearing request
admitted that the Maryland State Board
of Physicians summarily suspended
Respondent’s Maryland medical license.
GX 5, at 1. Respondent did not submit
any evidence that his Maryland medical
license was reinstated. Respondent,
thus, admitted that he currently is not
authorized to practice medicine in
Maryland.
Accordingly, I find that Respondent
currently is without authority to engage
in the practice of medicine in Maryland,
the State in which he is registered.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
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 of the Controlled
Substances Act (hereinafter, CSA),
‘‘upon a finding that the registrant . . .
has had his State License or registration
suspended [or] revoked by competent
State authority and is no longer
authorized by State law to engage in the
. . . dispensing of controlled
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:44 Nov 30, 2017
Jkt 244001
substances.’’ With respect to a
practitioner, the DEA has also 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, e.g.,
James L. Hooper, M.D., 76 FR 71,371
(2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 Fed.
Appx. 826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick
Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR 27,616,
27,617 (1978).
This rule derives from the text of two
provisions of the CSA. First, Congress
defined the term ‘‘ ‘practitioner’ [to]
mean[ ] 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.’’ 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 CSA,
the 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 practices. See,
e.g., Hooper, supra, 76 FR at 71,371–72;
Sheran Arden Yeates, M.D., 71 FR
39,130, 39,131 (2006); Dominick A.
Ricci, M.D., 58 FR 51,104, 51,105 (1993);
Bobby Watts, 53 FR 11,919, 11,920
(1988); Blanton, supra, 43 FR at 27,617.
According to Maryland Department of
Health regulations, a ‘‘prescription for a
controlled dangerous substance may be
issued only by an individual
practitioner who is . . . [a]uthorized to
prescribe controlled dangerous
substances in the State of Maryland, in
which the practitioner is licensed to
practice the practitioner’s profession.’’
MD Code Regs. 10.19.03.07B(1)(a)
(2017). The Maryland Department of
Health regulations define an ‘‘individual
practitioner’’ to be a ‘‘physician . . . or
other individual licensed, registered, or
otherwise permitted by . . . the
jurisdiction in which the individual
practitioner practices, to dispense a
controlled dangerous substance in the
course of professional practice.’’ MD
Code Regs. 10.19.03.02C(7)(a) (2017).
Under Maryland law, a ‘‘physician’’ is
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
56993
‘‘an individual who practices
medicine,’’ and a ‘‘licensed physician’’
is a physician ‘‘who is licensed by the
Board [of Physicians] to practice
medicine.’’ West’s MD Code Ann.,
Health Occupations, § 14–101(m) and (i)
(2017). Further, in Maryland, to
‘‘practice medicine’’ means ‘‘to engage
. . . in medical (i) Diagnosis; (ii)
Healing; (iii) Treatment; or (iv)
Surgery.’’ Id. at § 14–101(o)(1)(i-iv).
Thus, in Maryland, a physician may be
authorized to dispense controlled
substances only if he is licensed to
practice medicine.
In this case, the Maryland State Board
of Physicians suspended Respondent’s
license to practice medicine.
Consequently, Respondent is not
currently eligible to handle controlled
substances in the State of Maryland, the
State in which he is registered with the
Agency and, therefore, he is not entitled
to maintain his DEA registration.
Hooper, supra; Blanton, supra.
Accordingly, I will order that
Respondent’s registration be revoked
and that any pending application for the
renewal or modification of his
registration be denied. 21 U.S.C.
824(a)(3).
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 AS2145476 issued to Kofi
E. Shaw-Taylor, M.D., be, and it hereby
is, revoked. I further order that any
pending application of Kofi E. ShawTaylor, M.D., to renew or modify this
registration, as well as any other
pending application by him for
registration in the State of Maryland, be,
and it hereby is, denied. This order is
effective immediately.2
Dated: November 20, 2017.
Robert W. Patterson,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017–25922 Filed 11–30–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. DEA–392]
Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled
Substances Application: Nanosyn, Inc.
Drug Enforcement
Administration, Department of Justice.
AGENCY:
2 For the same reasons the Maryland State Board
of Physicians of the Maryland Department of Health
and Mental Hygiene suspended Respondent’s
Maryland Medical License summarily, I find that
the public interest necessitates that this Order be
effective immediately. 21 CFR 1316.67.
E:\FR\FM\01DEN1.SGM
01DEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 230 (Friday, December 1, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56992-56993]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25922]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Kofi E. Shaw-Taylor, M.D. Decision and Order
On June 12, 2017, the Assistant Administrator, Diversion Control
Division, Drug Enforcement Administration (hereinafter, DEA or
Government), issued an Order to Show Cause to Kofi E. Shaw-Taylor, M.D.
(hereinafter, Respondent) of Baltimore, Maryland. GX 1. The Show Cause
Order proposed the revocation of Respondent's Certificate of
Registration on the ground that Respondent does ``not have authority to
handle controlled substances in the State of Maryland,'' the State in
which he is registered. GX 1, at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and Sec.
824(a)(3)).
As to the Agency's jurisdiction, the Show Cause Order alleged that
Respondent holds DEA Certificate of Registration No. AS2145476 which
authorizes him to dispense controlled substances in schedules II
through V as a practitioner at the registered address of 4419 Falls
Road, Suite C, Baltimore, Maryland 21211. GX 1, at 1. See also GX 2
(Controlled Substance Registration Certificate) (including ``Westside
Medical Group''). The Show Cause Order alleged that this registration
expires on February 29, 2020. GX 1, at 1. See also GX 2.
As the substantive ground for the proceeding, the Show Cause Order
alleged that Respondent is ``without authority to handle controlled
substances in Maryland, the state in which . . . [he is] registered
with the DEA.'' GX 1, at 1. It further alleged that, on May 9, 2017,
Respondent's ``authority to prescribe and administer controlled
substances in the State of Maryland was suspended.'' GX 1, at 1. See
also GX 3 (Maryland State Board of Physicians Order of Summary
Suspension of License to Practice Medicine, hereinafter Order of
Summary Suspension). The Show Cause Order alleged that ``DEA must
revoke . . . [his] DEA . . . [registration] based upon . . . [his] lack
of authority to handle controlled substances in the State of
Maryland.'' GX 1, at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 802(21), 823(f)(1), and
824(a)(3)).
The Show Cause Order 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 procedures for electing each
option, and the consequences for failing to elect either option. GX 1,
at 2 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). The Show Cause Order also notified
Respondent of the opportunity to submit a corrective action plan. GX 1,
at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(c)(2)(C)).
By letter dated July 17, 2017 addressed to the Office of the [DEA]
Administrative Law Judges, Respondent, by his counsel, requested a
hearing. GX 5, at 1. The letter admitted that the Maryland State Board
of Physicians issued an Order of Summary Suspension of Respondent's
license to practice medicine on May 9, 2017. Id. According to the
letter, Respondent was challenging that Order ``on grounds of abuse of
and lack of due process.'' Id.
On July 24, 2017, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, John J.
Mulrooney, II, ordered the Government to file proof of service and
evidence in support of its allegation that Respondent lacked State
authority to practice medicine. GX 6, at 1 (Order Directing the Filing
of Proof of Service and Government Evidence of Lack of State Authority
Allegation and Briefing Schedule). The Order also established a
briefing schedule ``if the Government files a motion based on
timeliness of the hearing request and/or a motion for summary
disposition based on its allegation that the Respondent lacks state
authority to handle controlled substances.'' Id. at 1-2.
By submission dated July 28, 2017, Respondent, by his counsel,
submitted an ``Order to Show Cause Waiver of Hearing and Statement on
the Matter.'' GX 7. According to that submission, Respondent's counsel
stated that Respondent was served with the Show Cause Order on June 20,
2017. GX 7, at 1. He also stated that Respondent was waiving a hearing
on the Show Cause Order. Id. Further, the submission admitted that the
Maryland State Board of Physicians issued an Order of Summary
Suspension of Respondent's license to practice medicine, characterizing
the Order as being ``based on alleged but unproven charges.'' Id. It
expressed ``our fervent belief that the Respondent shall prevail in
this matter and his Medical license reinstated.'' Id. It asked that
``the DEA suspend the revocation'' of Respondent's registration
``pending the restoration of the Medical license to save the Respondent
the inconvenience, trauma and the lengthy process of reapplication of
this same license.'' Id.
By Order dated August 2, 2017, the Chief Administrative Law Judge
terminated the proceedings based on Respondent's ``Order to Show Cause
Waiver of Hearing and Statement on the Matter.'' GX 8, at 1 (Order
Terminating Proceedings).
On August 2, 2017, the Government submitted a Request for Final
Agency Action and an evidentiary record to support the Show Cause
Order's allegation.
I find that the Government's service of the Show Cause Order on
Respondent was legally sufficient. I find that, by letter from his
counsel dated July 17, 2017, Respondent requested a hearing. I find
that, by submission of his counsel dated July 28, 2017, Respondent
sought to file an ``Order to Show Cause Waiver of Hearing and Statement
on the Matter.'' Respondent was entitled to waive his right to a
hearing and to fail to follow up on his request for a hearing. See 21
CFR 1301.43(d). DEA regulations, however, limit the time for Respondent
to exercise his right to submit a written statement of position to
``the period permitted for filing a request for a hearing or a notice
of appearance,'' absent a showing of good cause. 21 CFR 1301.43(c).
Respondent's ``Statement on the Matter'' was not filed within the
period specified in the regulation, and Respondent did not make a
showing of good cause to excuse the untimeliness. I decline, therefore,
to consider any factual assertions or arguments that Respondent raised
in the ``Statement on the Matter.'' \1\ I issue this Decision and Order
based on the record submitted by the Government and on Respondent's
request for a hearing. 21 CFR 1301.43(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Respondent's ``Statement on the Matter'' did not claim that
Respondent's medical license had been reinstated. To the contrary,
it reiterated Respondent's admission that the Maryland State Board
of Physicians issued an Order of Summary Suspension of Respondent's
medical license.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Findings of Fact
Respondent's DEA Registration
Respondent currently holds DEA practitioner registration AS2145476
authorizing him to dispense controlled substances in schedules II
through V at the address of Westside Medical Group, 4419 Falls Road,
Suite C, Baltimore, Maryland 21211. GX 1, at 1; GX 2. This registration
expires on February 29, 2020. Id.
[[Page 56993]]
The Status of Respondent's State License
On May 9, 2017, the Executive Director of the Maryland State Board
of Physicians signed a 34-page Order summarily suspending Respondent's
license to practice medicine. GX 3. The Order of Summary Suspension
discussed numerous complaints against Respondent, including complaints
about Respondent's controlled substance prescribing practices, the
conclusions of an independent peer review agency that Respondent did
not meet quality standards for pain medicine, and allegations
concerning Respondent's unprofessional conduct. Id. The Order of
Summary Suspension concluded that Respondent acted unprofessionally in
his pain medicine practice, among other areas, and determined that the
public health, safety, or welfare imperatively required the emergency
action of the suspension of Respondent's medical license. Id. at 31-32.
The terms of the Order of Summary Suspension included the requirement
that Respondent surrender his original Maryland license D26832 and his
current license renewal certificate. Id. at 33.
On July 11, 2017, the DEA Diversion Investigator assigned to the
investigation of Respondent (hereinafter, DI) signed a Declaration. GX
4. In that Declaration, the DI stated that Respondent's license to
practice medicine in Maryland was suspended effective May 9, 2017 and
that Respondent ``currently has no authority to practice medicine in
Maryland.'' Id. at 1.
Respondent's hearing request admitted that the Maryland State Board
of Physicians summarily suspended Respondent's Maryland medical
license. GX 5, at 1. Respondent did not submit any evidence that his
Maryland medical license was reinstated. Respondent, thus, admitted
that he currently is not authorized to practice medicine in Maryland.
Accordingly, I find that Respondent currently is without authority
to engage in the practice of medicine in Maryland, the State in which
he is registered.
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 of the
Controlled Substances Act (hereinafter, CSA), ``upon a finding that the
registrant . . . has had his State License or registration suspended
[or] revoked by competent State authority and is no longer authorized
by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled
substances.'' With respect to a practitioner, the DEA has also 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, e.g., James L. Hooper,
M.D., 76 FR 71,371 (2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 Fed. Appx. 826
(4th Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR 27,616, 27,617
(1978).
This rule derives from the text of two provisions of the CSA.
First, Congress defined the term `` `practitioner' [to] mean[ ] 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.'' 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 CSA, the 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 practices. See, e.g., Hooper, supra, 76
FR at 71,371-72; Sheran Arden Yeates, M.D., 71 FR 39,130, 39,131
(2006); Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 FR 51,104, 51,105 (1993); Bobby
Watts, 53 FR 11,919, 11,920 (1988); Blanton, supra, 43 FR at 27,617.
According to Maryland Department of Health regulations, a
``prescription for a controlled dangerous substance may be issued only
by an individual practitioner who is . . . [a]uthorized to prescribe
controlled dangerous substances in the State of Maryland, in which the
practitioner is licensed to practice the practitioner's profession.''
MD Code Regs. 10.19.03.07B(1)(a) (2017). The Maryland Department of
Health regulations define an ``individual practitioner'' to be a
``physician . . . or other individual licensed, registered, or
otherwise permitted by . . . the jurisdiction in which the individual
practitioner practices, to dispense a controlled dangerous substance in
the course of professional practice.'' MD Code Regs. 10.19.03.02C(7)(a)
(2017). Under Maryland law, a ``physician'' is ``an individual who
practices medicine,'' and a ``licensed physician'' is a physician ``who
is licensed by the Board [of Physicians] to practice medicine.'' West's
MD Code Ann., Health Occupations, Sec. 14-101(m) and (i) (2017).
Further, in Maryland, to ``practice medicine'' means ``to engage . . .
in medical (i) Diagnosis; (ii) Healing; (iii) Treatment; or (iv)
Surgery.'' Id. at Sec. 14-101(o)(1)(i-iv). Thus, in Maryland, a
physician may be authorized to dispense controlled substances only if
he is licensed to practice medicine.
In this case, the Maryland State Board of Physicians suspended
Respondent's license to practice medicine. Consequently, Respondent is
not currently eligible to handle controlled substances in the State of
Maryland, the State in which he is registered with the Agency and,
therefore, he is not entitled to maintain his DEA registration. Hooper,
supra; Blanton, supra. Accordingly, I will order that Respondent's
registration be revoked and that any pending application for the
renewal or modification of his registration be denied. 21 U.S.C.
824(a)(3).
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
AS2145476 issued to Kofi E. Shaw-Taylor, M.D., be, and it hereby is,
revoked. I further order that any pending application of Kofi E. Shaw-
Taylor, M.D., to renew or modify this registration, as well as any
other pending application by him for registration in the State of
Maryland, be, and it hereby is, denied. This order is effective
immediately.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For the same reasons the Maryland State Board of Physicians
of the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene suspended
Respondent's Maryland Medical License summarily, I find that the
public interest necessitates that this Order be effective
immediately. 21 CFR 1316.67.
Dated: November 20, 2017.
Robert W. Patterson,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017-25922 Filed 11-30-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P