Parth S. Bharill; Decision and Order, 39014-39016 [2019-17004]
Download as PDF
39014
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 153 / Thursday, August 8, 2019 / Notices
Issued: August 6, 2019.
William Bishop,
Supervisory Hearings and Information
Officer.
[FR Doc. 2019–17134 Filed 8–6–19; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[USITC SE–19–031]
Sunshine Act Meetings
United
States International Trade Commission.
TIME AND DATE: August 22, 2019 at 11:00
a.m.
PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street SW,
Washington, DC 20436, Telephone:
(202) 205–2000..
STATUS: Open to the public.
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1. Agendas
for future meetings: None.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Vote on Inv. Nos. 701–TA–627–629
and 731–TA–1458–1461
(Preliminary)(Utility Scale Wind Towers
from Canada, Indonesia, Korea, and
Vietnam). The Commission is currently
scheduled to complete and file its
determinations on August 23, 2019;
views of the Commission are currently
scheduled to be completed and filed on
August 30, 2019.
5. Outstanding action jackets: None.
The Commission is holding the
meeting under the Government in the
Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b). In
accordance with Commission policy,
subject matter listed above, not disposed
of at the scheduled meeting, may be
carried over to the agenda of the
following meeting.
AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:
By order of the Commission.
Issued: August 6, 2019.
William Bishop,
Supervisory Hearings and Information
Officer.
[FR Doc. 2019–17133 Filed 8–6–19; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 19–19]
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES
Parth S. Bharill; Decision and Order
On March 13, 2019, the Assistant
Administrator, Diversion Control
Division, Drug Enforcement
Administration (hereinafter,
Government), issued an Order to Show
Cause to Parth S. Bharill, M.D.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Aug 07, 2019
Jkt 247001
(hereinafter, Respondent) of Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania. Order to Show Cause
(hereinafter, OSC), at 1. The OSC
proposed the revocation of
Respondent’s Certificate of Registration
No. BB3258034 on the ground that
Respondent does ‘‘not have authority to
handle controlled substances in
Pennsylvania, the state in which
[Respondent is] registered with the
DEA.’’ Id. (citing 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and
824(a)(3)).
Specifically, the OSC alleged that the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania State
Board of Medicine (hereinafter, Board)
issued an Order of Temporary
Suspension And Notice (hereinafter,
Temporary Suspension Order 1) on June
18, 2018. Id. This Temporary
Suspension Order, according to the
OSC, immediately restricted
Respondent’s license to practice
Medicine and Surgery because
Respondent’s ‘‘continued practice of
medicine and surgery in Pennsylvania
constitutes ‘an immediate and clear
danger to the public health and safety.’ ’’
Id. at 1–2. Further, the OSC alleged that
on July 13, 2018, the Board ‘‘issued an
‘Order Granting Continuance with
Immediate Temporary Suspension
Remaining In Effect’ (hereinafter,
Temporary Suspension Order 2),
whereby the Board maintained the
suspension of [Respondent’s] medical
license.’’ Id. at 2.
The OSC notified Respondent of the
right to request a hearing on the
allegations or to submit a written
statement while waiving the 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
Respondent of the opportunity to
submit a corrective action plan. Id. at 3
(citing 21 U.S.C. 824(c)(2)(C)).
By letter dated April 12, 2019,
Respondent timely requested a hearing.
Hearing Request, at 1. According to the
Hearing Request, Respondent’s interest
in the proceedings is to defend his
‘‘constitutionally protected right to
pursue a gainful occupation’’ and he
objects to the issuance of the OSC
because he applied to transfer his
certificate of registration (hereinafter,
COR) from his Pennsylvania address to
a West Virginia address on December
31, 2018, and he ‘‘has a current and
active Medical License . . . in the State
of West Virginia.’’ Id. at 1.
Respondent argues that ‘‘the use of
the phrase ‘may be suspended or
revoked’ [in 21 U.S.C. 824(a)]
demonstrates that this is a discretionary
authority of the DEA and does not take
effect by operation of law based upon
the loss of a license.’’ Id. at 2 (citations
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
omitted). He further contends that due
to Respondent’s request for a change of
address to West Virginia, ‘‘where an
application for modification is received,
it must be handled in the same manner
as an application for registration.’’ Id.
(citing 21 U.S.C. 823(f)). He argues that
DEA was required to grant the
modification because DEA has not
found ‘‘that Respondent’s requested
modification was inconsistent with the
public interest,’’ and he ‘‘has not [sic]
disciplinary action taken against his
West Virginia Medical License and,
therefore, the DEA has not [sic]
authority to revoke or suspend his
license.’’ Id.
The Office of Administrative Law
Judges put the matter on the docket and
assigned it to Administrative Law Judge
Mark M. Dowd (hereinafter, ALJ). The
ALJ issued an Order for Prehearing
Statements (hereinafter, PH Order)
dated April 22, 2019, setting a date by
which the Government should file
either a Prehearing Statement or a
Motion for Summary Disposition, and
affording Respondent one additional
week to file either its Prehearing
Statement or its Reply. PH Order, at 1–
2.
The Government filed its Motion for
Summary Disposition and Argument in
Support of Finding that Respondent
Lacks State Authorization to Handle
Controlled Substances (hereinafter,
Government’s Motion) on April 29,
2019. In its motion, the Government
stated that Respondent lacks authority
to handle controlled substances in
Pennsylvania, the state in which he is
registered with the DEA, and argued
that therefore, DEA must revoke his
registration. Government’s Motion, at 1.
On May 2, 2019, Respondent filed
both a Prehearing Statement and a
separate Response in Opposition to the
Government’s Motion for Summary
Disposition (hereinafter, Respondent’s
Response). In his Prehearing Statement,
Respondent requested that the
‘‘revocation of his registration be stayed
pending a determination on his
application for modification, or, in the
alternative, that the application for
modification be unaffected if revocation
is approved.’’ Respondent’s Prehearing
Statement, at 1. He also requested that
‘‘this case be determined on the
documents submitted by the parties.’’
Id., at 2, 3. In Respondent’s Response,
he contends that ‘‘prior to seeking to
revoke Respondent’s registration, the
DEA is required to decide the matter of
the application of modification,’’ or, in
the alternative, if his current registration
is revoked, his ‘‘application for
modification should continue and be
granted, unless the Government enters
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 153 / Thursday, August 8, 2019 / Notices
an order to show cause and
demonstrates before an ALJ that
granting the application is not in the
public interest.’’ Respondent’s
Response, at 4.
I have reviewed and considered
Respondent’s Prehearing Statement and
Respondent’s Response as part of, and
along with, the entire record before me.
On May 3, 2019, the ALJ granted the
Government’s Motion, finding that ‘‘the
subject of the instant litigation is not
whether the Respondent has requested
to modify his COR to reflect an address
in West Virginia, but whether he has
state authority to dispense controlled
substances in the state in which his
COR is currently registered,
Pennsylvania, which he concedes, he
does not.’’ Order Granting Summary
Disposition and Recommended Rulings,
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law,
and Decision (hereinafter, R.D.), at 7–8.
‘‘Therefore, summary disposition of an
administrative case is warranted where,
as here, ‘there is no factual dispute of
substance.’ ’’ Id. at 11 (citing Veg-Mix,
Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 832 F.2d
601, 607 (D.C. Cir. 1987)). The ALJ
recommended that Respondent’s
registration be revoked because
Respondent has conceded to his lack of
medical license in Pennsylvania and the
only ‘‘subject COR before this Tribunal
. . . has been fatally undermined by the
Respondent’s suspension of medical
licensure in Pennsylvania.’’ Id. at 10.
By letter dated June 5, 2019, the ALJ
certified and transmitted the record to
me for final Agency action. In that letter,
the ALJ advised that neither party filed
exceptions and that the time period to
do so had expired.
I issue this Decision and Order based
on the entire record before me. 21 CFR
1301.43(e). I make the following
findings of fact.
Findings of Fact
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES
Respondent’s DEA Registration
Respondent is the holder of DEA
Certificate of Registration No.
BB3258034 at the registered address of
1350 Locust Street, Suite G102,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219.
Government’s Motion, Attachment 1.
Pursuant to this registration,
Respondent is authorized to dispense
controlled substances in schedules II
through V as a practitioner and is also
authorized as a DATA-waived
practitioner to treat a maximum of 275
patients for narcotic treatment. Id.; see
21 CFR 1301.28(a) & (b)(iii).
Respondent’s registration expires on
July 31, 2019.
Government’s Motion, Attachment 1.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Aug 07, 2019
Jkt 247001
The Status of Respondent’s State
License
On June 18, 2018, the Board issued an
Order of Temporary Suspension and
Notice of Hearing (hereinafter,
Temporary Suspension Order)
suspending Respondent’s license
effective immediately upon service of
the Order. Government’s Motion,
Attachment 2, at 1–2. According to the
Temporary Suspension Order, the Board
determined that if the alleged facts were
taken as true, ‘‘[r]espondent’s continued
practice of medicine and surgery within
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
along with the exercise of any other . . .
‘authorizations to practice the
profession’ . . . make[] Respondent an
immediate and clear danger to the
public health and safety.’’ Government’s
Motion, Attachment 2, at 1. The Board
issued a second Order on July 12, 2018,
granting Respondent’s request for a
continuance on his preliminary hearing
and ordering that the suspension of
Respondent’s license to practice as a
physician and surgeon remain in effect
unless otherwise ordered by the SBM.
Government’s Motion, Attachment 3
(Order Granting Continuance with
Immediate Temporary Suspension
Remaining in Effect), at 1.
A Diversion Investigator assigned to
the Pittsburgh District Office,
Philadelphia Field Division of this
Agency stated that she accessed the
public website for the Pennsylvania
Bureau of Professional and
Occupational Affairs on April 24, 2019,
and obtained information from that
website showing Respondent’s medical
license was listed as under suspension
on that date. Declaration of Diversion
Investigator, Government’s Motion,
Attachment 6, at 2.
According to the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania’s online records, of which
I take official notice, Respondent’s
license remains suspended.
Pennsylvania Licensing System, State
Board of Medicine License Verification,
https://www.pals.pa.gov/#/page/
searchresult (last visited July 23, 2019).1
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,
Respondent 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 Respondent files a
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
39015
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s
online records show that Respondent’s
medical license remains suspended and
that Respondent is not authorized in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to
prescribe controlled substances. Id.
Accordingly, I find that Respondent
currently is neither licensed to engage
in the practice of medicine nor
registered to dispense controlled
substances in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, the State in which he is
registered with the DEA.
I further find, consistent with the
findings of the ALJ, that Respondent’s
application for modification is not the
subject of this proceeding, and agree
that the Government did not challenge
that application modification in its OSC.
See R.D., at 9–10.2
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.’’ Id. 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
motion, the Government shall have 15 calendar
days to file a response.
2 Respondent’s COR expires July 31, 2019. See
Government’s Motion, Attachment 1. Pursuant to 21
CFR § 1301.51(c), ‘‘[n]o fee shall be required for
modification . . . . If the modification of
registration is granted, the registrant . . . shall
maintain it with the old certificate of registration
until expiration.’’ Because the modification is tied
to the expiration date of the original COR, the
modification will expire on the same date as the
COR, unless the applicant renews the COR. See
Craig S. Morris, D.D.S., 83 FR 36,966, 36,967 (2018)
(‘‘The fact that DEA handles a modification request
‘in the same manner as an application for
registration’ pursuant to 21 CFR
[§ ] 1301.51(c) does not mean that a modification
request is the same as an application for a new
registration in every respect . . . . [U]nlike a timely
renewal application, a request to modify the
registration address of an existing registration . . .
does not remain pending after that registration
expires, nor does it operate to extend when that
registration expires.’’ (citing 21 CFR 1301.51(c))).
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
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
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 153 (Thursday, August 8, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39014-39016]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17004]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 19-19]
Parth S. Bharill; Decision and Order
On March 13, 2019, the Assistant Administrator, Diversion Control
Division, Drug Enforcement Administration (hereinafter, Government),
issued an Order to Show Cause to Parth S. Bharill, M.D. (hereinafter,
Respondent) of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Order to Show Cause
(hereinafter, OSC), at 1. The OSC proposed the revocation of
Respondent's Certificate of Registration No. BB3258034 on the ground
that Respondent does ``not have authority to handle controlled
substances in Pennsylvania, the state in which [Respondent is]
registered with the DEA.'' Id. (citing 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a)(3)).
Specifically, the OSC alleged that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
State Board of Medicine (hereinafter, Board) issued an Order of
Temporary Suspension And Notice (hereinafter, Temporary Suspension
Order 1) on June 18, 2018. Id. This Temporary Suspension Order,
according to the OSC, immediately restricted Respondent's license to
practice Medicine and Surgery because Respondent's ``continued practice
of medicine and surgery in Pennsylvania constitutes `an immediate and
clear danger to the public health and safety.' '' Id. at 1-2. Further,
the OSC alleged that on July 13, 2018, the Board ``issued an `Order
Granting Continuance with Immediate Temporary Suspension Remaining In
Effect' (hereinafter, Temporary Suspension Order 2), whereby the Board
maintained the suspension of [Respondent's] medical license.'' Id. at
2.
The OSC notified Respondent of the right to request a hearing on
the allegations or to submit a written statement while waiving the
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 Respondent of the opportunity to
submit a corrective action plan. Id. at 3 (citing 21 U.S.C.
824(c)(2)(C)).
By letter dated April 12, 2019, Respondent timely requested a
hearing. Hearing Request, at 1. According to the Hearing Request,
Respondent's interest in the proceedings is to defend his
``constitutionally protected right to pursue a gainful occupation'' and
he objects to the issuance of the OSC because he applied to transfer
his certificate of registration (hereinafter, COR) from his
Pennsylvania address to a West Virginia address on December 31, 2018,
and he ``has a current and active Medical License . . . in the State of
West Virginia.'' Id. at 1.
Respondent argues that ``the use of the phrase `may be suspended or
revoked' [in 21 U.S.C. 824(a)] demonstrates that this is a
discretionary authority of the DEA and does not take effect by
operation of law based upon the loss of a license.'' Id. at 2
(citations omitted). He further contends that due to Respondent's
request for a change of address to West Virginia, ``where an
application for modification is received, it must be handled in the
same manner as an application for registration.'' Id. (citing 21 U.S.C.
823(f)). He argues that DEA was required to grant the modification
because DEA has not found ``that Respondent's requested modification
was inconsistent with the public interest,'' and he ``has not [sic]
disciplinary action taken against his West Virginia Medical License
and, therefore, the DEA has not [sic] authority to revoke or suspend
his license.'' Id.
The Office of Administrative Law Judges put the matter on the
docket and assigned it to Administrative Law Judge Mark M. Dowd
(hereinafter, ALJ). The ALJ issued an Order for Prehearing Statements
(hereinafter, PH Order) dated April 22, 2019, setting a date by which
the Government should file either a Prehearing Statement or a Motion
for Summary Disposition, and affording Respondent one additional week
to file either its Prehearing Statement or its Reply. PH Order, at 1-2.
The Government filed its Motion for Summary Disposition and
Argument in Support of Finding that Respondent Lacks State
Authorization to Handle Controlled Substances (hereinafter,
Government's Motion) on April 29, 2019. In its motion, the Government
stated that Respondent lacks authority to handle controlled substances
in Pennsylvania, the state in which he is registered with the DEA, and
argued that therefore, DEA must revoke his registration. Government's
Motion, at 1.
On May 2, 2019, Respondent filed both a Prehearing Statement and a
separate Response in Opposition to the Government's Motion for Summary
Disposition (hereinafter, Respondent's Response). In his Prehearing
Statement, Respondent requested that the ``revocation of his
registration be stayed pending a determination on his application for
modification, or, in the alternative, that the application for
modification be unaffected if revocation is approved.'' Respondent's
Prehearing Statement, at 1. He also requested that ``this case be
determined on the documents submitted by the parties.'' Id., at 2, 3.
In Respondent's Response, he contends that ``prior to seeking to revoke
Respondent's registration, the DEA is required to decide the matter of
the application of modification,'' or, in the alternative, if his
current registration is revoked, his ``application for modification
should continue and be granted, unless the Government enters
[[Page 39015]]
an order to show cause and demonstrates before an ALJ that granting the
application is not in the public interest.'' Respondent's Response, at
4.
I have reviewed and considered Respondent's Prehearing Statement
and Respondent's Response as part of, and along with, the entire record
before me.
On May 3, 2019, the ALJ granted the Government's Motion, finding
that ``the subject of the instant litigation is not whether the
Respondent has requested to modify his COR to reflect an address in
West Virginia, but whether he has state authority to dispense
controlled substances in the state in which his COR is currently
registered, Pennsylvania, which he concedes, he does not.'' Order
Granting Summary Disposition and Recommended Rulings, Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, and Decision (hereinafter, R.D.), at 7-8.
``Therefore, summary disposition of an administrative case is warranted
where, as here, `there is no factual dispute of substance.' '' Id. at
11 (citing Veg-Mix, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 832 F.2d 601, 607
(D.C. Cir. 1987)). The ALJ recommended that Respondent's registration
be revoked because Respondent has conceded to his lack of medical
license in Pennsylvania and the only ``subject COR before this Tribunal
. . . has been fatally undermined by the Respondent's suspension of
medical licensure in Pennsylvania.'' Id. at 10.
By letter dated June 5, 2019, the ALJ certified and transmitted the
record to me for final Agency action. In that letter, the ALJ advised
that neither party filed exceptions and that the time period to do so
had expired.
I issue this Decision and Order based on the entire record before
me. 21 CFR 1301.43(e). I make the following findings of fact.
Findings of Fact
Respondent's DEA Registration
Respondent is the holder of DEA Certificate of Registration No.
BB3258034 at the registered address of 1350 Locust Street, Suite G102,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219. Government's Motion, Attachment 1.
Pursuant to this registration, Respondent is authorized to dispense
controlled substances in schedules II through V as a practitioner and
is also authorized as a DATA-waived practitioner to treat a maximum of
275 patients for narcotic treatment. Id.; see 21 CFR 1301.28(a) &
(b)(iii). Respondent's registration expires on July 31, 2019.
Government's Motion, Attachment 1.
The Status of Respondent's State License
On June 18, 2018, the Board issued an Order of Temporary Suspension
and Notice of Hearing (hereinafter, Temporary Suspension Order)
suspending Respondent's license effective immediately upon service of
the Order. Government's Motion, Attachment 2, at 1-2. According to the
Temporary Suspension Order, the Board determined that if the alleged
facts were taken as true, ``[r]espondent's continued practice of
medicine and surgery within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, along
with the exercise of any other . . . `authorizations to practice the
profession' . . . make[] Respondent an immediate and clear danger to
the public health and safety.'' Government's Motion, Attachment 2, at
1. The Board issued a second Order on July 12, 2018, granting
Respondent's request for a continuance on his preliminary hearing and
ordering that the suspension of Respondent's license to practice as a
physician and surgeon remain in effect unless otherwise ordered by the
SBM. Government's Motion, Attachment 3 (Order Granting Continuance with
Immediate Temporary Suspension Remaining in Effect), at 1.
A Diversion Investigator assigned to the Pittsburgh District
Office, Philadelphia Field Division of this Agency stated that she
accessed the public website for the Pennsylvania Bureau of Professional
and Occupational Affairs on April 24, 2019, and obtained information
from that website showing Respondent's medical license was listed as
under suspension on that date. Declaration of Diversion Investigator,
Government's Motion, Attachment 6, at 2.
According to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's online records, of
which I take official notice, Respondent's license remains suspended.
Pennsylvania Licensing System, State Board of Medicine License
Verification, https://www.pals.pa.gov/#/page/searchresult (last visited
July 23, 2019).\1\ The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's online records
show that Respondent's medical license remains suspended and that
Respondent is not authorized in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to
prescribe controlled substances. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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, Respondent 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 Respondent files a motion, the Government
shall have 15 calendar days to file a response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, I find that Respondent currently is neither licensed
to engage in the practice of medicine nor registered to dispense
controlled substances in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the State in
which he is registered with the DEA.
I further find, consistent with the findings of the ALJ, that
Respondent's application for modification is not the subject of this
proceeding, and agree that the Government did not challenge that
application modification in its OSC. See R.D., at 9-10.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Respondent's COR expires July 31, 2019. See Government's
Motion, Attachment 1. Pursuant to 21 CFR Sec. 1301.51(c), ``[n]o
fee shall be required for modification . . . . If the modification
of registration is granted, the registrant . . . shall maintain it
with the old certificate of registration until expiration.'' Because
the modification is tied to the expiration date of the original COR,
the modification will expire on the same date as the COR, unless the
applicant renews the COR. See Craig S. Morris, D.D.S., 83 FR 36,966,
36,967 (2018) (``The fact that DEA handles a modification request
`in the same manner as an application for registration' pursuant to
21 CFR
[Sec. ] 1301.51(c) does not mean that a modification request is
the same as an application for a new registration in every respect .
. . . [U]nlike a timely renewal application, a request to modify the
registration address of an existing registration . . . does not
remain pending after that registration expires, nor does it operate
to extend when that registration expires.'' (citing 21 CFR
1301.51(c))).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.'' Id. 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
[[Page 39016]]
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. Sec. 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.
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.
[FR Doc. 2019-17004 Filed 8-7-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P