Anthony Schapera, M.D.; Decision and Order, 39016-39018 [2019-17003]
Download as PDF
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES
39016
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 153 / Thursday, August 8, 2019 / Notices
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, M.D., 53 FR 11,919, 11,920
(1988); Blanton, supra, 43 FR at 27,617.
Under the Pennsylvania Controlled
Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic
Act, ‘‘no controlled substance . . . may
be dispensed without the written
prescription of a practitioner.’’ 35 Pa.
Stat. and Const. Stat. Ann. § 780–111(a)
(West April 7, 2014 to October 23,
2019). Further, the definition of
‘‘practitioner,’’ as used in the Act,
includes a ‘‘physician . . . or other
person licensed, registered or otherwise
permitted to distribute, dispense,
conduct research with respect to or to
administer a controlled substance . . .
in the course of professional practice
. . . in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.’’ Id. at 780–102(b).
Here, the undisputed evidence in the
record is that Respondent currently
lacks authority to practice medicine in
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. As
already discussed, a physician must be
a licensed practitioner to dispense a
controlled substance in Pennsylvania.
Thus, because Respondent lacks
authority to practice medicine in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and,
therefore, is not authorized to handle
controlled substances in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
Respondent is not eligible to maintain a
DEA registration. Accordingly, I will
order that Respondent’s DEA
registration be revoked.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Aug 07, 2019
Jkt 247001
Order
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the
authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C.
824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate
of Registration No. BB3258034 issued to
Parth S. Bharill, M.D. This Order is
effective September 9, 2019.
Dated: July 29, 2019.
Uttam Dhillon,
Acting Administrator.
Dated: July 30, 2019.
John J. Martin,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019–17002 Filed 8–7–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[FR Doc. 2019–17004 Filed 8–7–19; 8:45 am]
Anthony Schapera, M.D.; Decision and
Order
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. DEA–392]
Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled
Substances Application: Alcami
Wisconsin Corporation
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 October 7, 2019.
DATES:
Written comments should
be sent to: Drug Enforcement
Administration, Attention: DEA Federal
Register Representative/DPW, 8701
Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia
22152.
ADDRESSES:
In
accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this
is notice that on March 12 2019, Alcami
Wisconsin Corporation, W130N10497
Washington Drive, Germantown,
Wisconsin 53022 applied to be
registered as a bulk manufacturer of the
following basic classes of controlled
substances:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Controlled substance
Drug
code
Marihuana Extract .....................
Marihuana .................................
Tetrahydrocannabinols .............
5-Methoxy-N-Ndimethyltryptamine.
Thebaine ...................................
Alfentanil ...................................
7350
7360
7370
7431
I
I
I
I
9333
9737
II
II
Schedule
The company plans to provide bulk
active pharmaceutical ingredient to
support clinical trials. In reference to
drug codes 7350 marihuana extract,
7360 marihuana, and 7360 THC, the
company plans to manufacturer these
substances synthetically. No other
activity for these drug codes is
authorized for this registration.
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
On December 31, 2018, the Assistant
Administrator, Diversion Control
Division, Drug Enforcement
Administration (hereinafter, DEA or
Government), issued an Order to Show
Cause (hereinafter, OSC) to Anthony
Schapera, M.D. (hereinafter, Registrant),
of Bishop, California. OSC, at 1. The
OSC proposes the revocation of
Registrant’s Certificate of Registration
No. AS3008213, the denial of any
applications for renewal or modification
of his registration, and the denial of
‘‘any applications for any other DEA
registrations’’ on the ground that he
‘‘has no state authority to handle
controlled substances.’’ Id. (citing 21
U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).
The substantive ground for the
proceeding, as alleged in the OSC, is
that Registrant is ‘‘without authority to
handle controlled substances in the
State of California, the state in which
. . . [he is] registered with DEA.’’ Id.
Specifically, the OSC alleges that the
Medical Board of California revoked
Registrant’s medical license effective
June 22, 2018. Id.
The Show Cause Order notified
Registrant 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. Id. at 2 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43).
The OSC also notified Registrant of the
opportunity to submit a corrective
action plan. OSC, at 2–3 (citing 21
U.S.C. 824(c)(2)(C)).
Adequacy of Service
In a Declaration dated March 19, 2019
(hereinafter, Declaration), a Diversion
Investigator (hereinafter, DI) assigned to
the Newark Field Division declared
under penalty of perjury that he and
another DI ‘‘personally served’’ the OSC
on Registrant. Declaration, at 1.
Attached to the DI’s Declaration is a
DEA–12, Receipt for Cash or Other
Items. According to the DI, Registrant
acknowledged receipt of the OSC by
signing this DEA–12 on January 17,
2019. Id.
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 153 / Thursday, August 8, 2019 / Notices
In its Request for Final Agency Action
(hereinafter, RFAA), the Government
represents that ‘‘at least 30 days have
passed since the . . . [OSC] was served
on Registrant . . . and Registrant has
not requested a hearing and has not
otherwise corresponded or
communicated with DEA’’ regarding the
OSC ‘‘including the filing of any written
statement in lieu of a hearing.’’ RFAA,
at 2. The Government requests ‘‘a Final
Order revoking Registrant’s DEA
registration.’’ Id. at 4.
Based on the DI’s Declaration, the
Government’s written representations,
and my review of the record, I find that
the Government accomplished service
of the OSC on Registrant on January 17,
2019. I also find that more than 30 days
have now passed since the Government
accomplished service of the OSC.
Further, based on the Government’s
written representations, I find that
neither Registrant, nor anyone
purporting to represent him, requested a
hearing, submitted a written statement
while waiving Registrant’s right to a
hearing, or submitted a corrective action
plan. Accordingly, I find that Registrant
has waived his right to a hearing and his
right to submit a written statement and
corrective action plan. 21 CFR
1301.43(d) and 21 U.S.C. 824(c)(2)(C). I,
therefore, issue this Decision and Order
based on the record submitted by the
Government, which constitutes the
entire record before me. 21 CFR
1301.43(e).
Findings of Fact
Registrant’s DEA Registration
Registrant is the holder of DEA
Certificate of Registration No.
AS3008213 at the registered address of
2385 Apache Drive, Bishop, CA 93514.
GX 1 (Certification of Registration
History), at 1. Pursuant to this
registration, Registrant is authorized to
dispense controlled substances in
schedules II through V as a practitioner.
Id. Registrant’s registration is in an
‘‘active pending status’’ and expires on
February 28, 2021. Id.
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES
The Status of Registrant’s State License
On May 24, 2018, the Medical Board
of California (hereinafter, MBC) issued a
Decision ordering the revocation of
Registrant’s medical license effective
June 22, 2018. The MBC Decision
adopts the Proposed Decision of
Administrative Law Judge Jonathan
Lew. ALJ Lew received evidence, heard
oral argument, and closed the record
before issuing the Proposed Decision.
Registrant was represented by counsel
before ALJ Lew.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Aug 07, 2019
Jkt 247001
The MBC Decision states that the
causes for the revocation are (1)
Registrant’s conviction of criminal
offenses substantially related to the
qualifications, functions, or duties of a
physician and surgeon and that also
constitute unprofessional conduct, and
(2) Registrant’s impairment due to a
mental condition that ‘‘impacts . . .
[his] ability to safely engage in the
practice of medicine at this time.’’
Decision, at 25.
According to California’s online
records, of which I take official notice,
Registrant’s license is still revoked.1
Medical Board of California Online
License Search, https://www.mbc.ca.gov/
Breeze/License_Verification.aspx (last
visited July 29, 2019).
Accordingly, I find that Registrant
currently is not licensed to engage in the
practice of medicine in California, the
State in which he is registered with the
DEA.
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
1 Under the Administrative Procedure Act, an
agency ‘‘may take official notice of facts at any stage
in a proceeding—even in the final decision.’’
United States Department of Justice, Attorney
General’s Manual on the Administrative Procedure
Act 80 (1947) (Wm. W. Gaunt & Sons, Inc., Reprint
1979). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 556(e), ‘‘[w]hen an
agency decision rests on official notice of a material
fact not appearing in the evidence in the record, a
party is entitled, on timely request, to an
opportunity to show the contrary.’’ Accordingly,
Registrant may dispute my finding by filing a
properly supported motion for reconsideration
within 15 calendar days of the date of this Order.
Any such motion shall be filed with the Office of
the Administrator and a copy shall be served on the
Government. In the event Registrant files a motion,
the Government shall have 15 calendar days to file
a response.
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
39017
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, M.D., 53 FR 11,919, 11,920
(1988); Blanton, supra, 43 FR at 27,617.
According to the California Uniform
Controlled Substances Act, ‘‘No person
other than a physician . . . shall write
or issue a prescription.’’ Cal. Health &
Safety Code § 11150 (West, Westlaw
current with urgency legislation through
Ch. 5 of 2019 Reg. Sess.). Further,
‘‘physician,’’ as defined by California
statute, is a person who is ‘‘licensed to
practice’’ in California. Cal. Health &
Safety Code § 11024 (West, Westlaw
current with urgency legislation through
Ch. 5 of 2019 Reg. Sess.).
Here, the undisputed evidence in the
record is that Registrant currently lacks
authority to practice medicine in
California. As already discussed, a
physician must be licensed to practice
medicine in order to write or issue a
controlled substance prescription in
California. Thus, because Registrant
lacks authority to practice medicine in
California and, therefore, is not
authorized to dispense controlled
substances in California, he is not
eligible to maintain a DEA registration.
Accordingly, I will order that
Registrant’s DEA registration be
revoked.
Order
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the
authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C.
823(f) and 824(a), I hereby revoke DEA
Certificate of Registration No.
AS3008213 issued to Anthony
Schapera, M.D. Further, I hereby deny
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
39018
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 153 / Thursday, August 8, 2019 / Notices
any pending application of Anthony
Schapera, M.D. to renew or modify this
registration, as well as any pending
application of Anthony Schapera, M.D.
for registration in California. This Order
is effective September 9, 2019.
Dated: July 28, 2019.
Uttam Dhillon,
Acting Administrator.
This completes the process to renew the
Charter for an additional 2-year period.
Gregory Joy,
Policy Advisor/Designated Federal Officer,
Bureau of Justice Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2019–16987 Filed 8–7–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–18–P
[FR Doc. 2019–17003 Filed 8–7–19; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
Employment and Training
Administration
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Office of Justice Programs
[OJP (BJA) Docket No. 1763]
Notice of Renewal of the Charter for
the Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor
Review Board
Office of Justice Programs
(OJP), Bureau of Justice Assistance
(BJA), Justice.
ACTION: Renewal of the Charter.
AGENCY:
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Aug 07, 2019
Jkt 247001
Office of Unemployment
Insurance (OUI), Employment and
Training Administration (ETA),
Department of Labor (DOL).
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The Bipartisan Budget Act of
2018 (BBA), Public Law 115–123 (2018),
established permanent authorization for
the RESEA program by enacting section
306 of title III, (SSA). This notice
announces the formula to allocate base
funds for the RESEA program, as
provided under Section 306(f)(1), SSA,
42 U.S.C. 506(f)(1).
On April 4, 2019, ETA published a
notice in the Federal Register (84 FR
13319) requesting public comment
concerning the development of a
proposed formula that ETA will use to
distribute funding to States for RESEA.
The notice presented a description of a
proposed allocation formula and public
comments were requested. The
comment period closed on May 6, 2019.
This notice summarizes and responds to
the comments received and publishes
the final allocation formula that will
take effect in Fiscal Year (FY) 2021.
DATES: The RESEA allocation formula
described in this notice will take effect
in FY 2021.
ADDRESSES: Questions about this notice
may be submitted to the U.S.
Department of Labor, Employment and
Training Administration, Office of
Unemployment Insurance, 200
Constitution Avenue NW, Room S–
4524, Washington, DC 20210, Attention:
Lawrence Burns, or by email at DOLETA-UI-FRN@dol.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lawrence Burns, Division of
Unemployment Insurance Operations, at
202–693–3141 (this is not a toll-free
number), TTY 1–877–889–5627, or by
email at Burns.Lawrence@dol.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
The Bureau of Justice
Assistance provides notice that the
charter of the Public Safety Officer
Medal of Valor Review Board has been
renewed.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Visit
the website for the Public Safety Officer
Medal of Valor Review Board at https://
www.bja.gov/programs/medalofvalor/
index.html or contact Gregory Joy,
Policy Advisor, Bureau of Justice
Assistance, Office of Justice Programs,
810 7th Street NW, Washington, DC
20531, by telephone at (202) 514–1369,
toll free (866) 859–2687, or by email at
Gregory.joy@usdoj.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Bureau of Justice Assistance provides
notice that the charter of the Public
Safety Officer Medal of Valor Review
Board has been renewed.
The Charter for the Public Safety
Officer Medal of Valor Review Board
was submitted to the U.S. Attorney
General, who subsequent approved its
renewal on April 24, 2019. Following
this approval, separate correspondence
were mailed June 5, 2019, to: The
Honorable Lindsey Graham, Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary, United
States Senate; The Honorable Dianne
Feinstein, Ranking Member, Committee
on the Judiciary, United States Senate;
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. House of Representatives; The
Honorable Doug Collins, Ranking
Member, Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. House of Representatives; and Ms.
Sara Striner, Chair, Federal Advisory
Committee Desk, Library of Congress.
SUMMARY:
Allocating Grants to States for
Reemployment Services and Eligibility
Assessments (RESEA) in Accordance
With Title III, Section 306 of the Social
Security Act (SSA)
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
I. Introduction
Since 2005, DOL and participating
State workforce agencies have been
addressing individual reemployment
needs of Unemployment Insurance (UI)
claimants and working to prevent and
detect UI improper payments through
the voluntary UI Reemployment and
Eligibility Assessment (REA) program
and, beginning in FY 2015, through the
voluntary RESEA program.
On February 9, 2018, the President
signed the BBA, which included
amendments to the SSA creating a
permanent authorization for the RESEA
program. The RESEA provisions are
contained in section 30206 of the BBA,
enacting new section 306 of the SSA. 42
U.S.C. 506. Section 306, SSA also
contains provisions for funding the
RESEA program.
The primary goals of the RESEA
program are to: Improve employment
outcomes for individuals that receive
unemployment compensation (UC) by
reducing average duration of receipt of
UC through employment; strengthen
program integrity and reduce improper
payments; promote alignment with the
broader vision of the Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act
through increased program integration
and service delivery for job seekers; and
establish RESEA as an entry point to
other workforce system partner
programs for individuals receiving UC.
Core services that must be provided to
RESEA participants are:
• UI eligibility assessment, including
review of work search activities, and
referral to adjudication, as appropriate,
if an issue or potential issue is
identified;
• Labor market and career
information that address the claimant’s
specific needs;
• Enrollment in Wagner-Peyser Act
funded Employment Services;
• Support to the claimant to develop
and implement an individual
reemployment plan; and
• Information regarding, and access
to, American Job Center services and
providing referrals to reemployment
services and training, as appropriate, to
support the claimant’s return to work.
II. Background
Section 306, SSA, specifies three uses
for amounts appropriated for the RESEA
program and designates the proportion
of annual appropriations to be assigned
to these uses: (1) Base funding (84
percent to 89 percent of the
appropriation depending on the year)
for States to operate the RESEA
program, (2) outcome payments (10
percent to 15 percent of the
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 153 (Thursday, August 8, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39016-39018]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17003]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Anthony Schapera, M.D.; Decision and Order
On December 31, 2018, the Assistant Administrator, Diversion
Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration (hereinafter, DEA or
Government), issued an Order to Show Cause (hereinafter, OSC) to
Anthony Schapera, M.D. (hereinafter, Registrant), of Bishop,
California. OSC, at 1. The OSC proposes the revocation of Registrant's
Certificate of Registration No. AS3008213, the denial of any
applications for renewal or modification of his registration, and the
denial of ``any applications for any other DEA registrations'' on the
ground that he ``has no state authority to handle controlled
substances.'' Id. (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).
The substantive ground for the proceeding, as alleged in the OSC,
is that Registrant is ``without authority to handle controlled
substances in the State of California, the state in which . . . [he is]
registered with DEA.'' Id. Specifically, the OSC alleges that the
Medical Board of California revoked Registrant's medical license
effective June 22, 2018. Id.
The Show Cause Order notified Registrant 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. Id. at
2 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). The OSC also notified Registrant of the
opportunity to submit a corrective action plan. OSC, at 2-3 (citing 21
U.S.C. 824(c)(2)(C)).
Adequacy of Service
In a Declaration dated March 19, 2019 (hereinafter, Declaration), a
Diversion Investigator (hereinafter, DI) assigned to the Newark Field
Division declared under penalty of perjury that he and another DI
``personally served'' the OSC on Registrant. Declaration, at 1.
Attached to the DI's Declaration is a DEA-12, Receipt for Cash or Other
Items. According to the DI, Registrant acknowledged receipt of the OSC
by signing this DEA-12 on January 17, 2019. Id.
[[Page 39017]]
In its Request for Final Agency Action (hereinafter, RFAA), the
Government represents that ``at least 30 days have passed since the . .
. [OSC] was served on Registrant . . . and Registrant has not requested
a hearing and has not otherwise corresponded or communicated with DEA''
regarding the OSC ``including the filing of any written statement in
lieu of a hearing.'' RFAA, at 2. The Government requests ``a Final
Order revoking Registrant's DEA registration.'' Id. at 4.
Based on the DI's Declaration, the Government's written
representations, and my review of the record, I find that the
Government accomplished service of the OSC on Registrant on January 17,
2019. I also find that more than 30 days have now passed since the
Government accomplished service of the OSC. Further, based on the
Government's written representations, I find that neither Registrant,
nor anyone purporting to represent him, requested a hearing, submitted
a written statement while waiving Registrant's right to a hearing, or
submitted a corrective action plan. Accordingly, I find that Registrant
has waived his right to a hearing and his right to submit a written
statement and corrective action plan. 21 CFR 1301.43(d) and 21 U.S.C.
824(c)(2)(C). I, therefore, issue this Decision and Order based on the
record submitted by the Government, which constitutes the entire record
before me. 21 CFR 1301.43(e).
Findings of Fact
Registrant's DEA Registration
Registrant is the holder of DEA Certificate of Registration No.
AS3008213 at the registered address of 2385 Apache Drive, Bishop, CA
93514. GX 1 (Certification of Registration History), at 1. Pursuant to
this registration, Registrant is authorized to dispense controlled
substances in schedules II through V as a practitioner. Id.
Registrant's registration is in an ``active pending status'' and
expires on February 28, 2021. Id.
The Status of Registrant's State License
On May 24, 2018, the Medical Board of California (hereinafter, MBC)
issued a Decision ordering the revocation of Registrant's medical
license effective June 22, 2018. The MBC Decision adopts the Proposed
Decision of Administrative Law Judge Jonathan Lew. ALJ Lew received
evidence, heard oral argument, and closed the record before issuing the
Proposed Decision. Registrant was represented by counsel before ALJ
Lew.
The MBC Decision states that the causes for the revocation are (1)
Registrant's conviction of criminal offenses substantially related to
the qualifications, functions, or duties of a physician and surgeon and
that also constitute unprofessional conduct, and (2) Registrant's
impairment due to a mental condition that ``impacts . . . [his] ability
to safely engage in the practice of medicine at this time.'' Decision,
at 25.
According to California's online records, of which I take official
notice, Registrant's license is still revoked.\1\ Medical Board of
California Online License Search, https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Breeze/License_Verification.aspx (last visited July 29, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Under the Administrative Procedure Act, an agency ``may take
official notice of facts at any stage in a proceeding--even in the
final decision.'' United States Department of Justice, Attorney
General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act 80 (1947) (Wm.
W. Gaunt & Sons, Inc., Reprint 1979). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 556(e),
``[w]hen an agency decision rests on official notice of a material
fact not appearing in the evidence in the record, a party is
entitled, on timely request, to an opportunity to show the
contrary.'' Accordingly, Registrant may dispute my finding by filing
a properly supported motion for reconsideration within 15 calendar
days of the date of this Order. Any such motion shall be filed with
the Office of the Administrator and a copy shall be served on the
Government. In the event Registrant files a motion, the Government
shall have 15 calendar days to file a response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, I find that Registrant currently is not licensed to
engage in the practice of medicine in California, the State in which he
is registered with the DEA.
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, M.D., 53 FR 11,919, 11,920 (1988); Blanton, supra, 43 FR at
27,617.
According to the California Uniform Controlled Substances Act, ``No
person other than a physician . . . shall write or issue a
prescription.'' Cal. Health & Safety Code Sec. 11150 (West, Westlaw
current with urgency legislation through Ch. 5 of 2019 Reg. Sess.).
Further, ``physician,'' as defined by California statute, is a person
who is ``licensed to practice'' in California. Cal. Health & Safety
Code Sec. 11024 (West, Westlaw current with urgency legislation
through Ch. 5 of 2019 Reg. Sess.).
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant
currently lacks authority to practice medicine in California. As
already discussed, a physician must be licensed to practice medicine in
order to write or issue a controlled substance prescription in
California. Thus, because Registrant lacks authority to practice
medicine in California and, therefore, is not authorized to dispense
controlled substances in California, he is not eligible to maintain a
DEA registration. Accordingly, I will order that Registrant's DEA
registration be revoked.
Order
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21
U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of
Registration No. AS3008213 issued to Anthony Schapera, M.D. Further, I
hereby deny
[[Page 39018]]
any pending application of Anthony Schapera, M.D. to renew or modify
this registration, as well as any pending application of Anthony
Schapera, M.D. for registration in California. This Order is effective
September 9, 2019.
Dated: July 28, 2019.
Uttam Dhillon,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019-17003 Filed 8-7-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P