Paul Surinder Singh, D.O.; Decision And Order, 3251-3253 [2019-01849]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
3251
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2019 / Notices
Comments and requests for hearing on
applications to import narcotic raw
material are not appropriate. 72 FR 3417
(January 25, 2007).
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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
In accordance with 21 CFR
1301.34(a), this is notice that on
December 6, 2018, Stepan Company,
100 West Hunter Avenue, Maywood,
New Jersey 07607–1021 applied to be
registered as an importer of the
following basic class of controlled
substance:
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. DEA–392]
Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled
Substances Registration
ACTION:
Controlled
substance
Drug
code
Coca Leaves ............
9040
Schedule
II
The company plans to import the
listed controlled substance in bulk for
the manufacture of controlled
substances for distribution to its
customers.
Dated: February 4, 2019.
John J. Martin,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019–01847 Filed 2–8–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
Notice of registration.
The registrant listed below
has applied for and been granted a
registration by the Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) as bulk
manufacturer of a schedule I controlled
substance.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
company listed below applied to be
registered as a bulk manufacturer of a
various basic class of a schedule I
controlled substance. Information on the
previously published notice is listed in
the table below. No comments or
objections were submitted for this
notice.
SUMMARY:
Company
FR Docket
Specgx, LLC .....................................................................................................................................................
83 FR 51983
The DEA has considered the factors in
21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that
the registration of this registrant to
manufacture the applicable basic class
of controlled substance is consistent
with the public interest and with United
States obligations under international
treaties, conventions, or protocols in
effect on May 1, 1971. The DEA
investigated the company’s maintenance
of effective controls against diversion by
inspecting and testing the company’s
physical security systems, verifying the
company’s compliance with state and
local laws, and reviewing the company’s
background and history.
Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C.
823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR
1301.33, the DEA has granted a
registration as a bulk manufacturer to
the above listed company.
Dated: January 30, 2019.
John J. Martin,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019–01862 Filed 2–8–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:05 Feb 08, 2019
Jkt 247001
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 19–2]
Paul Surinder Singh, D.O.; Decision
And Order
On August 8, 2018, the Assistant
Administrator, Diversion Control
Division, Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA), issued an Order
to Show Cause to Paul Surinder Singh,
D.O. (Respondent), of Tehachapi,
California. The Show Cause Order
proposed the revocation of
Respondent’s DEA Certificate of
Registration No. BS7367623 on the
ground that he has ‘‘no state authority
to handle controlled substances.’’ Order
to Show Cause, at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C.
824(a)(3)). For the same reason, the
Order also proposed the denial of any of
Respondent’s ‘‘applications for renewal
or modification of such registration and
any applications for any other DEA
registrations.’’ Id.
With respect to the Agency’s
jurisdiction, the Show Cause Order
alleged that Respondent is the holder of
Certificate of Registration No.
BS7367623, pursuant to which he is
authorized to dispense controlled
substances as a practitioner in schedules
II through V, at the registered address of
276 C South Mill Street, Tehachapi,
California. Id. The Order also alleged
PO 00000
Frm 00115
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Published
October 15, 2018.
that this registration does not expire
until February 28, 2019. Id.
Regarding the substantive grounds for
the proceeding, the Show Cause Order
alleged that on April 17, 2017, the
Osteopathic Medical Board of California
(OMBC) ‘‘adopted the Proposed
Decision of an Administrative Law
Judge . . . recommending revocation
of’’ Respondent’s ‘‘Osteopathic
Physician’s License,’’ effective on May
17, 2017. Id. As a result, the Order
alleged that Respondent is ‘‘without
authority to handle controlled
substances in the State of California, the
[S]tate in which [he is] registered with
DEA.’’ Id. at 1–2. Based on his ‘‘lack of
authority to [dispense] controlled
substances in . . . California,’’ the
Order asserted that ‘‘DEA must revoke’’
Respondent’s registration. Id. at 2 (citing
21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3); 21 CFR 1301.37(b)).
The Show Cause Order notified
Respondent of (1) his right to request a
hearing on the allegations or to submit
a written statement in lieu of a hearing,
(2) the procedure for electing either
option, and (3) the consequence for
failing to elect either option. Id. (citing
21 CFR 1301.43). The Order also
notified Respondent of his right to
submit a corrective action plan. Id. at
2–3 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(c)(2)(C)).
On October 15, 2018, Respondent
filed a letter (dated October 9, 2018)
indicating that the Show Cause Order
was ‘‘delivered to [him] by DEA agents
E:\FR\FM\11FEN1.SGM
11FEN1
3252
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2019 / Notices
on September 19, 2018’’ and that he was
‘‘requesting a hearing on the subject
matter of the revocation of [his] DEA
license.’’ Oct. 9, 2018 Letter from
Respondent to Hearing Clerk. The
matter was then placed on the docket of
the Office of Administrative Law Judges
and assigned to Administrative Law
Judge Mark M. Dowd (ALJ). On October
16, 2018, the ALJ issued an Order noting
that ‘‘[n]othing in the record indicates
when the [Show Cause Order] was
served on Respondent besides
Respondent’s own assertion of the date
[when that Order] was personally served
on him.’’ Order Directing the Filing of
Evidence of Lack of State Authority
Allegation and Briefing Schedule, at
1–2. As a result, the ALJ ordered the
Government (1) to ‘‘submit evidence
showing when the Respondent first
received’’ the Show Cause Order by
October 19, 2018 and (2) to ‘‘file
evidence to support its allegation that
Respondent lacks state authority to
handle controlled substances, or any
other grounds upon which it seeks
summary disposition’’ by October 23,
2018. Id. at 2. The ALJ also directed
Respondent to file his response to any
summary disposition motion no later
than October 30, 2018. Id.
On October 18, 2018, the Government
filed its Motion for Summary
Disposition. In its Motion, the
Government stated that ‘‘Respondent
was personally served with the Order to
Show Cause on September 19, 2018.’’
Government’s Motion for Summary
Disposition (Government’s Motion or
Govt. Mot.) at 1. In support of its
position, the Government submitted a
Declaration signed by a Diversion
Investigator (DI) assigned to DEA’s San
Francisco Field Division. Government
Exhibit (GX) 2 to Govt. Mot. In that
Declaration, the DI stated that he, along
with the Diversion Group Supervisor,
traveled to Respondent’s residence and
personally served him on September 19,
2018. Id. at 1.
With respect to the substantive
grounds for its Motion, the Government
argued that Respondent currently lacks
authority to handle controlled
substances in California because, on
April 17, 2017, the OMBC ‘‘adopted the
Proposed Decision of an Administrative
Law Judge . . . recommending
revocation of Respondent’s Osteopathic
Physician’s License number 20A7851.’’
Govt. Mot., at 3 (citing GX 3). The
Government noted that the OMBC’s
revocation of Respondent’s license was
effective beginning on May 17, 2017. Id.
The Government further argued that,
‘‘[a]bsent authority by the State of
California to dispense controlled
substances, Respondent is not
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:05 Feb 08, 2019
Jkt 247001
authorized to possess a DEA registration
in that state.’’ Id. Lastly, the
Government argued that under Agency
precedent, revocation is warranted even
where a State has temporarily
suspended a practitioner’s state
authority with the possibility of future
reinstatement. Id. at 4 (citations
omitted). As support for its summary
disposition request, the Government
submitted, inter alia, a certified copy of
the OMBC’s April 17, 2017 Decision
adopting the California Administrative
Law Judge’s Proposed Decision to
revoke Respondent’s license, the March
21, 2017 Proposed Decision, and the
April 13, 2016 ‘‘Accusation’’ against
Respondent that the OMBC Executive
Director filed with the OMBC. GX 3 to
Govt. Mot.
After considering these pleadings, the
ALJ issued an Order on November 2,
2018 recommending that I find that
there was no dispute ‘‘over the fact that
Respondent currently lacks state
authority to handle controlled
substances in the State of California
because the [OMBC] has revoked his
medical license.’’ Order Granting the
Government’s Motion for Summary
Disposition, and Recommended
Rulings, Findings of Fact, Conclusions
of Law, and Decision of the
Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter
‘‘Recommended Decision’’ or ‘‘R.D.’’), at
6.1 As a result, the ALJ granted the
Government’s motion for summary
disposition and recommended that I
revoke Respondent’s DEA registration.
Id. at 7.2
Neither party filed exceptions to the
ALJ’s Recommended Decision.
Thereafter, the record was forwarded to
my Office for Final Agency Action.
Having reviewed the record, I find that
Respondent is currently without
authority to handle controlled
substances in California, the State in
which he holds his registration with the
Agency, and thus he is not entitled to
maintain his DEA registration. I adopt
the ALJ’s recommendation that I revoke
Respondent’s registration. I make the
following factual findings.
1 The ALJ issued his Recommended Decision after
concluding ‘‘that the Respondent has forfeited his
right to respond to the Government’s allegations’’
set forth in the Government’s Motion because he
‘‘has not filed any reply to the Government’s
allegations,’’ ‘‘has not submitted a request for an
extension to reply to the Government’s allegations,
and has had no further communication with this
tribunal apart from the submission of the Request
for Hearing.’’ R.D., at 3.
2 After considering the Government’s Motion, the
ALJ also found that ‘‘Respondent’s Request for
Hearing was timely filed.’’ R.D., at 2 n.1. I agree and
adopt the ALJ’s finding that Respondent filed a
timely hearing request.
PO 00000
Frm 00116
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Findings of Fact
Respondent is the holder of DEA
Certificate of Registration No.
BS7367623, pursuant to which he is
authorized to dispense controlled
substances in schedules II through V as
a practitioner at the registered address
of 276 C South Mill Street, Tehachapi,
California. GX 1 (Certification of
Registration History) to Govt. Mot. This
registration does not expire until
February 28, 2019. Id.
Respondent was also the holder of
California Osteopathic Physician’s and
Surgeon’s License No. 20A7851, which
was issued to him by the OMBC. GX 3
to Govt. Mot., at 4. However, on April
17, 2017, the OMBC issued its Decision
adopting the March 21, 2017 Proposed
Decision of a California Administrative
Law Judge revoking Respondent’s
medical license ‘‘together with all
licensing rights appurtenant thereto.’’
GX 3 to Govt. Mot., at 2, 11.3 The OMBC
stated that its Decision ‘‘shall become
effective on May 17, 2017.’’ Id. at 2.
There is no evidence in the record that
the OMBC ever issued a superseding
order or decision reinstituting
Respondent’s license.
Accordingly, I find that Respondent
currently does not possess a license to
practice medicine in the State of
California, the State in which he is
registered with the DEA. See id.
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 (CSA), ‘‘upon a finding
that the registrant . . . has had his State
3 In its March 21, 2017, Proposed Decision, the
California ALJ based his proposed decision to
revoke Respondent’s medical license primarily on
his findings of fact related to Respondent’s own
admissions in connection with his federal felony
conviction for mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C.
1341. See GX 3 to Govt. Mot., at 4, 9. The California
ALJ recited Respondent’s admission in his plea
agreement that, in the course of committing his mail
fraud scheme, he ‘‘knowingly obtained non-FDA
approved copper IUDs [intrauterine devices] by
purchasing them on the internet[,] knowingly
inserted them into his patients[. . . and] failed to
inform his patients that he had inserted a non-FDA
approved copper IUD.’’ Id. at 4 (citations omitted).
The California ALJ also recited Respondent’s
admission that he had ‘‘billed at least 10 different
health care benefit programs for payment for the
insertion of non-FDA approved copper IUDs in his
patients . . . representing that he inserted an FDAapproved copper IUD when in fact he had not.’’ Id.
at 5. The California ALJ also noted that the OMBC
had ‘‘previously disciplined Respondent for his
conduct arising out of the same general facts’’ on
November 15, 2014. Id. Pursuant to these findings,
the California ALJ concluded that Respondent
violated sections 2234(e), 2236(a), and 2261 of
California’s Business and Professions Code related
to unprofessional conduct and dishonest and
corrupt acts. Id. at 9.
E:\FR\FM\11FEN1.SGM
11FEN1
3253
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 28 / Monday, February 11, 2019 / Notices
license . . . suspended [or] revoked
. . . by competent State authority and is
no longer authorized by State law to
engage in the . . . dispensing of
controlled substances.’’ Also, DEA has
long held that the possession of
authority to dispense controlled
substances under the laws of the State
in which a practitioner engages in
professional practice is a fundamental
condition for obtaining and maintaining
a practitioner’s registration. See, e.g.,
James L. Hooper, 76 FR 71371 (2011),
pet. for rev. denied, 481 Fed. Appx. 826
(4th Cir. 2012); see also Frederick Marsh
Blanton, 43 FR 27616 (1978) (‘‘State
authorization to dispense or otherwise
handle controlled substances is a
prerequisite to the issuance and
maintenance of a Federal controlled
substances registration.’’).
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 Act,
DEA has long 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 engages in professional
practice. 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); Blanton, 43 FR
27616 (1978).
Based on my finding that the OMBC
revoked Respondent’s Osteopathic
Physician’s and Surgeon’s License to
practice medicine, I find that
Respondent is currently without
authority to dispense controlled
substances under the laws of California,
the State in which he is registered.
Accord Christopher D. Owens, M.D., 83
FR 13143, 13145 & n.1 (2018) (citing
Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 11024,
11150, 11210, 11352, 2051, 2052). Here,
there is no dispute over the material fact
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:05 Feb 08, 2019
Jkt 247001
that Respondent is no longer currently
authorized to dispense controlled
substances in California, the State in
which he is registered. Accordingly,
Respondent is not entitled to maintain
his DEA registration. I will therefore
adopt the ALJ’s recommendation that I
revoke Respondent’s registration. R.D.,
at 7. I will also deny any pending
application to renew or to modify his
registration, or any pending application
for any other DEA registration in
California, as requested in the Show
Cause Order. Order to Show Cause, at 1.
Order
Pursuant to the authority vested in me
by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a), as well
as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I order that DEA
Certificate of Registration No.
BS7367623, issued to Paul Surinder
Singh, D.O., be, and it hereby is,
revoked. I further order that any
pending application of Paul Surinder
Singh to renew or modify the above
registration, or any pending application
of Paul Surinder Singh for any other
DEA registration in the State of
California, be, and it hereby is, denied.
This Order is effective March 13, 2019.
Dated: January 17, 2019.
Uttam Dhillon,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019–01849 Filed 2–8–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
Enforcement Administration, Attn:
Hearing Clerk/OALJ, 8701 Morrissette
Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and
(2) Drug Enforcement Administration,
Attn: DEA Federal Register
Representative/DPW, 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
December 28, 2018, Almac Clinical
Services Incorp (ACSI), 25 Fretz Road,
Souderton, Pennsylvania 18964 applied
to be registered as an importer of the
following basic class of controlled
substance:
Controlled
substance
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. DEA–392]
Importer of Controlled Substances
Application: Almac Clinical Services
Incorp (ACSI)
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 March 13, 2019. Such persons
may also file a written request for a
hearing on the application on or before
March 13, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should
be sent to: Drug Enforcement
Administration, Attention: DEA Federal
Register Representative/DPW, 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
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00117
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Drug
code
Psilocybin .................
7437
Schedule
I
The company plans to import the
controlled substance in packaged dosage
forms for clinical trials for one
customer.
Dated: January 30, 2019.
John J. Martin,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019–01861 Filed 2–8–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING
COMMISSION
Notice of Memorandum of Agreement
National Capital Planning
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of Memorandum of
Agreement Between the National
Capital Planning Commission and the
Smithsonian Institution.
AGENCY:
The National Capital Planning
Commission (NCPC) and the
Smithsonian Institution (Smithsonian)
have entered into a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) effective December
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\11FEN1.SGM
11FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 28 (Monday, February 11, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3251-3253]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-01849]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 19-2]
Paul Surinder Singh, D.O.; Decision And Order
On August 8, 2018, the Assistant Administrator, Diversion Control
Division, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an Order to
Show Cause to Paul Surinder Singh, D.O. (Respondent), of Tehachapi,
California. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of
Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration No. BS7367623 on the
ground that he has ``no state authority to handle controlled
substances.'' Order to Show Cause, at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).
For the same reason, the Order also proposed the denial of any of
Respondent's ``applications for renewal or modification of such
registration and any applications for any other DEA registrations.''
Id.
With respect to the Agency's jurisdiction, the Show Cause Order
alleged that Respondent is the holder of Certificate of Registration
No. BS7367623, pursuant to which he is authorized to dispense
controlled substances as a practitioner in schedules II through V, at
the registered address of 276 C South Mill Street, Tehachapi,
California. Id. The Order also alleged that this registration does not
expire until February 28, 2019. Id.
Regarding the substantive grounds for the proceeding, the Show
Cause Order alleged that on April 17, 2017, the Osteopathic Medical
Board of California (OMBC) ``adopted the Proposed Decision of an
Administrative Law Judge . . . recommending revocation of''
Respondent's ``Osteopathic Physician's License,'' effective on May 17,
2017. Id. As a result, the Order alleged that Respondent is ``without
authority to handle controlled substances in the State of California,
the [S]tate in which [he is] registered with DEA.'' Id. at 1-2. Based
on his ``lack of authority to [dispense] controlled substances in . . .
California,'' the Order asserted that ``DEA must revoke'' Respondent's
registration. Id. at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3); 21 CFR 1301.37(b)).
The Show Cause Order notified Respondent of (1) his right to
request a hearing on the allegations or to submit a written statement
in lieu of a hearing, (2) the procedure for electing either option, and
(3) the consequence for failing to elect either option. Id. (citing 21
CFR 1301.43). The Order also notified Respondent of his right to submit
a corrective action plan. Id. at 2-3 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(c)(2)(C)).
On October 15, 2018, Respondent filed a letter (dated October 9,
2018) indicating that the Show Cause Order was ``delivered to [him] by
DEA agents
[[Page 3252]]
on September 19, 2018'' and that he was ``requesting a hearing on the
subject matter of the revocation of [his] DEA license.'' Oct. 9, 2018
Letter from Respondent to Hearing Clerk. The matter was then placed on
the docket of the Office of Administrative Law Judges and assigned to
Administrative Law Judge Mark M. Dowd (ALJ). On October 16, 2018, the
ALJ issued an Order noting that ``[n]othing in the record indicates
when the [Show Cause Order] was served on Respondent besides
Respondent's own assertion of the date [when that Order] was personally
served on him.'' Order Directing the Filing of Evidence of Lack of
State Authority Allegation and Briefing Schedule, at 1-2. As a result,
the ALJ ordered the Government (1) to ``submit evidence showing when
the Respondent first received'' the Show Cause Order by October 19,
2018 and (2) to ``file evidence to support its allegation that
Respondent lacks state authority to handle controlled substances, or
any other grounds upon which it seeks summary disposition'' by October
23, 2018. Id. at 2. The ALJ also directed Respondent to file his
response to any summary disposition motion no later than October 30,
2018. Id.
On October 18, 2018, the Government filed its Motion for Summary
Disposition. In its Motion, the Government stated that ``Respondent was
personally served with the Order to Show Cause on September 19, 2018.''
Government's Motion for Summary Disposition (Government's Motion or
Govt. Mot.) at 1. In support of its position, the Government submitted
a Declaration signed by a Diversion Investigator (DI) assigned to DEA's
San Francisco Field Division. Government Exhibit (GX) 2 to Govt. Mot.
In that Declaration, the DI stated that he, along with the Diversion
Group Supervisor, traveled to Respondent's residence and personally
served him on September 19, 2018. Id. at 1.
With respect to the substantive grounds for its Motion, the
Government argued that Respondent currently lacks authority to handle
controlled substances in California because, on April 17, 2017, the
OMBC ``adopted the Proposed Decision of an Administrative Law Judge . .
. recommending revocation of Respondent's Osteopathic Physician's
License number 20A7851.'' Govt. Mot., at 3 (citing GX 3). The
Government noted that the OMBC's revocation of Respondent's license was
effective beginning on May 17, 2017. Id. The Government further argued
that, ``[a]bsent authority by the State of California to dispense
controlled substances, Respondent is not authorized to possess a DEA
registration in that state.'' Id. Lastly, the Government argued that
under Agency precedent, revocation is warranted even where a State has
temporarily suspended a practitioner's state authority with the
possibility of future reinstatement. Id. at 4 (citations omitted). As
support for its summary disposition request, the Government submitted,
inter alia, a certified copy of the OMBC's April 17, 2017 Decision
adopting the California Administrative Law Judge's Proposed Decision to
revoke Respondent's license, the March 21, 2017 Proposed Decision, and
the April 13, 2016 ``Accusation'' against Respondent that the OMBC
Executive Director filed with the OMBC. GX 3 to Govt. Mot.
After considering these pleadings, the ALJ issued an Order on
November 2, 2018 recommending that I find that there was no dispute
``over the fact that Respondent currently lacks state authority to
handle controlled substances in the State of California because the
[OMBC] has revoked his medical license.'' Order Granting the
Government's Motion for Summary Disposition, and Recommended Rulings,
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision of the
Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter ``Recommended Decision'' or
``R.D.''), at 6.\1\ As a result, the ALJ granted the Government's
motion for summary disposition and recommended that I revoke
Respondent's DEA registration. Id. at 7.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The ALJ issued his Recommended Decision after concluding
``that the Respondent has forfeited his right to respond to the
Government's allegations'' set forth in the Government's Motion
because he ``has not filed any reply to the Government's
allegations,'' ``has not submitted a request for an extension to
reply to the Government's allegations, and has had no further
communication with this tribunal apart from the submission of the
Request for Hearing.'' R.D., at 3.
\2\ After considering the Government's Motion, the ALJ also
found that ``Respondent's Request for Hearing was timely filed.''
R.D., at 2 n.1. I agree and adopt the ALJ's finding that Respondent
filed a timely hearing request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither party filed exceptions to the ALJ's Recommended Decision.
Thereafter, the record was forwarded to my Office for Final Agency
Action. Having reviewed the record, I find that Respondent is currently
without authority to handle controlled substances in California, the
State in which he holds his registration with the Agency, and thus he
is not entitled to maintain his DEA registration. I adopt the ALJ's
recommendation that I revoke Respondent's registration. I make the
following factual findings.
Findings of Fact
Respondent is the holder of DEA Certificate of Registration No.
BS7367623, pursuant to which he is authorized to dispense controlled
substances in schedules II through V as a practitioner at the
registered address of 276 C South Mill Street, Tehachapi, California.
GX 1 (Certification of Registration History) to Govt. Mot. This
registration does not expire until February 28, 2019. Id.
Respondent was also the holder of California Osteopathic
Physician's and Surgeon's License No. 20A7851, which was issued to him
by the OMBC. GX 3 to Govt. Mot., at 4. However, on April 17, 2017, the
OMBC issued its Decision adopting the March 21, 2017 Proposed Decision
of a California Administrative Law Judge revoking Respondent's medical
license ``together with all licensing rights appurtenant thereto.'' GX
3 to Govt. Mot., at 2, 11.\3\ The OMBC stated that its Decision ``shall
become effective on May 17, 2017.'' Id. at 2. There is no evidence in
the record that the OMBC ever issued a superseding order or decision
reinstituting Respondent's license.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In its March 21, 2017, Proposed Decision, the California ALJ
based his proposed decision to revoke Respondent's medical license
primarily on his findings of fact related to Respondent's own
admissions in connection with his federal felony conviction for mail
fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341. See GX 3 to Govt. Mot., at 4,
9. The California ALJ recited Respondent's admission in his plea
agreement that, in the course of committing his mail fraud scheme,
he ``knowingly obtained non-FDA approved copper IUDs [intrauterine
devices] by purchasing them on the internet[,] knowingly inserted
them into his patients[. . . and] failed to inform his patients that
he had inserted a non-FDA approved copper IUD.'' Id. at 4 (citations
omitted). The California ALJ also recited Respondent's admission
that he had ``billed at least 10 different health care benefit
programs for payment for the insertion of non-FDA approved copper
IUDs in his patients . . . representing that he inserted an FDA-
approved copper IUD when in fact he had not.'' Id. at 5. The
California ALJ also noted that the OMBC had ``previously disciplined
Respondent for his conduct arising out of the same general facts''
on November 15, 2014. Id. Pursuant to these findings, the California
ALJ concluded that Respondent violated sections 2234(e), 2236(a),
and 2261 of California's Business and Professions Code related to
unprofessional conduct and dishonest and corrupt acts. Id. at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, I find that Respondent currently does not possess a
license to practice medicine in the State of California, the State in
which he is registered with the DEA. See id.
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 (CSA), ``upon a finding that the registrant .
. . has had his State
[[Page 3253]]
license . . . suspended [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority
and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . .
dispensing of controlled substances.'' Also, DEA has long held that the
possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the
laws of the State in which a practitioner engages in professional
practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a
practitioner's registration. See, e.g., James L. Hooper, 76 FR 71371
(2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 Fed. Appx. 826 (4th Cir. 2012); see
also Frederick Marsh Blanton, 43 FR 27616 (1978) (``State authorization
to dispense or otherwise handle controlled substances is a prerequisite
to the issuance and maintenance of a Federal controlled substances
registration.'').
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 Act, DEA has long 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 engages in professional practice. 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); Blanton, 43 FR 27616 (1978).
Based on my finding that the OMBC revoked Respondent's Osteopathic
Physician's and Surgeon's License to practice medicine, I find that
Respondent is currently without authority to dispense controlled
substances under the laws of California, the State in which he is
registered. Accord Christopher D. Owens, M.D., 83 FR 13143, 13145 & n.1
(2018) (citing Cal. Health & Safety Code Sec. Sec. 11024, 11150,
11210, 11352, 2051, 2052). Here, there is no dispute over the material
fact that Respondent is no longer currently authorized to dispense
controlled substances in California, the State in which he is
registered. Accordingly, Respondent is not entitled to maintain his DEA
registration. I will therefore adopt the ALJ's recommendation that I
revoke Respondent's registration. R.D., at 7. I will also deny any
pending application to renew or to modify his registration, or any
pending application for any other DEA registration in California, as
requested in the Show Cause Order. Order to Show Cause, at 1.
Order
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and
824(a), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I order that DEA Certificate of
Registration No. BS7367623, issued to Paul Surinder Singh, D.O., be,
and it hereby is, revoked. I further order that any pending application
of Paul Surinder Singh to renew or modify the above registration, or
any pending application of Paul Surinder Singh for any other DEA
registration in the State of California, be, and it hereby is, denied.
This Order is effective March 13, 2019.
Dated: January 17, 2019.
Uttam Dhillon,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019-01849 Filed 2-8-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
