Michael Thomas Watkins, M.D.; Decision and Order, 27246-27247 [2020-09721]
Download as PDF
27246
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 89 / Thursday, May 7, 2020 / Notices
Attn: DEA Federal Register
Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette
Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In
accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this
is notice that on March 2, 2020,
Novitium Pharma LLC, 70 Lake Drive,
East Windsor, New Jersey 08520,
applied to be registered as an importer
of the following basic class(es) of
controlled substances:
Controlled substance
Drug
code
Schedule
Lisdexamfetamine ....
1205
II
The company plans to import the
listed controlled substance as a raw
material for drug product development
and research.
The company may import Active
Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API) for
research purposes only but not for the
manufacturing of Food and Drug
Administration-approved products.
Approval of permit applications will
occur only when the registrant’s activity
is consistent with what is authorized
under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2).
William T. McDermott,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020–09705 Filed 5–6–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Michael Thomas Watkins, M.D.;
Decision and Order
On November 4, 2019, the Assistant
Administrator, Diversion Control
Division, Drug Enforcement
Administration (hereinafter, DEA or
Government), issued an Order to Show
Cause (hereinafter, OSC) to Michael
Thomas Watkins, M.D. (hereinafter,
Registrant) of Boston, Massachusetts.
OSC, at 1. The OSC proposed the
revocation of Registrant’s Certificate of
Registration No. BW0913132 and the
denial of ‘‘any applications for renewal
or modification of such registration and
any applications for any other DEA
registrations.’’ Id. It alleged that
Registrant is ‘‘without authority to
handle controlled substances in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the
state in which . . . [he is] registered
with the DEA.’’ Id. at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C.
824(a)(3); 21 CFR 1301.37(b)).
Specifically, the OSC alleged that,
‘‘[o]n or about May 30, 2019, the
Massachusetts Board of Registration in
Medicine . . . ratified a ‘Voluntary
Agreement Not to Practice Medicine’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:45 May 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
that . . . [Registrant] signed on May 22,
2019, in which . . . [he] agreed to ‘cease
. . . [his] practice of medicine in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
effective immediately.’’’ OSC, at 1. The
OSC further alleged that Registrant’s
‘‘Massachusetts Controlled Substances
License was terminated due to the
Board action’’ and, ‘‘[t]hus, . . . [he is]
currently without authority to handle
controlled substances in . . . the state
in which . . . [he is] registered with the
DEA.’’ Id. at 2. The OSC concluded that
‘‘DEA must revoke . . . [Registrant’s]
DEA registration based on . . . [his] lack
of authority to handle controlled
substances in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.’’ Id.
The OSC notified Registrant 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. (citing 21 CFR
1301.43). The OSC also notified
Registrant of the opportunity to submit
a corrective action plan. OSC, at 3
(citing 21 U.S.C. 824(c)(2)(C)).
Adequacy of Service
In a Declaration dated February 24,
2020, a Diversion Investigator
(hereinafter, DI) assigned to the New
England Division, stated that she and
another DI traveled to the address her
investigation identified to be
Registrant’s home on November 12,
2019. Request for Final Agency Action
dated February 26, 2020 (hereinafter,
RFAA), Exhibit (hereinafter, EX) 4
(Declaration of Service of Order to Show
Cause dated February 24, 2020), at 1.
The DI stated that she and the other DI
showed their credentials to the ‘‘woman
who answered the door’’ and asked if
Registrant was ‘‘available.’’ Id. The
woman, according to the DI’s
Declaration, responded that Registrant
‘‘was not home.’’ Id. After verifying the
woman’s identity as Registrant’s spouse,
DI ‘‘explained . . . that Registrant was
being served with the . . . [OSC] and
handed the . . . [OSC] to . . . [the
woman] to give to Registrant.’’ Id. The
woman signed a receipt for the OSC. Id.;
see also id. at EX 4B (signed DEA–12
receipt dated November 12, 2019), at 1.
According to the DI’s Declaration, the
woman ‘‘stated that she would give the
documents to Registrant.’’ Id. at EX 4, at
1.
The Government forwarded its RFAA,
along with the evidentiary record, to
this office on February 26, 2020. In its
RFAA, the Government represented that
‘‘[a]t least 30 days have passed since the
time the Order was served on Registrant.
Registrant has not requested a hearing
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
and has not otherwise corresponded or
communicated with DEA regarding the
Order . . . including the filing of any
written statement in lieu of a hearing.’’
RFAA, at 2. The Government requested
that Registrant’s registration be revoked,
based on his having ‘‘no valid medical
license in Massachusetts’’ and his being
‘‘without state authority to handle
controlled substances in Massachusetts,
the state where he is registered with
DEA.’’ Id. at 3.
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 November
12, 2019. Dale L. Taylor, M.D., 72 FR
30,855, 30,855 (2007) (concluding that
service was sufficient when OSC and
Immediate Suspension Order were left
at registrant’s residence with his wife);
Sajjan Gangappa Chikkannaiah, M.D.,
54 FR 8608, 8608 (1989) (noticing OSC
and Immediate Suspension Order to
registrant through the Federal Register
when family, wife, and staff were
unable to provide any information on
registrant’s whereabouts); Fredric J.
Sloan, M.D., 52 FR 10,957, 10,957
(1987) (serving registrant’s wife with
OSC at their residence was sufficient
notice to registrant).
I also find that more than thirty days
have now passed since the Government
accomplished service of the OSC.
Further, based on the Government’s
written representations and my review
of the record, I find that neither
Registrant, nor anyone purporting to
represent Registrant, 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 the right to a hearing and
the 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.
BW0913132 at the registered address of
Dept. of Surgery-Vascular-MGH, 15
Parkman Street, ACC 440, Boston, MA
02114. RFAA, EX 1 (Certification of
Registration Status for DEA No.
BW0913132 dated December 4, 2019), at
1. Pursuant to this registration,
Registrant is authorized to dispense
controlled substances in schedules II
E:\FR\FM\07MYN1.SGM
07MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 89 / Thursday, May 7, 2020 / Notices
through V as a practitioner. Id.
Registrant’s registration expires on May
31, 2020 and is in an ‘‘active pending
status.’’ Id.
The Status of Registrant’s State License
The Government submitted evidence
that Registrant signed a ‘‘Voluntary
Agreement Not to Practice Medicine’’
(hereinafter, Voluntary Agreement) on
May 22, 2019. RFAA, EX 3, at 3. The
Massachusetts Board of Registration in
Medicine (hereinafter, MBRM) accepted
the Voluntary Agreement on May 23,
2019, and ratified it on May 30, 2019.
Id. According to the Voluntary
Agreement, Registrant ceased his
practice of medicine in Massachusetts
‘‘effective immediately.’’ Id. at 1. By
signing the Voluntary Agreement,
Registrant also agreed that ‘‘[a]ny
violation of this [Voluntary] Agreement
shall be prima facie evidence for
immediate summary suspension of my
license to practice medicine.’’ Id.
According to the records of the MBRM,
of which I take official notice, the
Voluntary Agreement remains in effect.1
MBRM Physician Search, https://
www.mass.gov/orgs/board-ofregistration-in-medicine (last visited
April 28, 2020).2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Discussion
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the
Attorney General is authorized to
suspend or revoke a registration issued
under section 823 of the CSA ‘‘upon a
finding that the registrant . . . has had
his State license or registration
suspended . . . [or] revoked . . . by
competent State authority and is no
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 of
finding of fact within fifteen 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 fifteen calendar days to file a response. Any
such motion and response may be filed and served
by email (dea.addo.attorneys@dea.usdoj.gov) or by
mail to Office of the Administrator, Attn: ADDO,
Drug Enforcement Administration, 8701 Morrissette
Drive, Springfield, VA 22152.
2 The same record from the MBRM Physician
Search shows that Registrant’s Massachusetts
medical license expired on November 17, 2019. The
RFAA does not address the expiration of
Registrant’s Massachusetts medical license,
although evidence submitted with the RFAA about
the Voluntary Agreement shows that Registrant’s
medical license expired. RFAA, EX 5, at 1.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:45 May 06, 2020
Jkt 250001
longer authorized by State law to engage
in the . . . dispensing of controlled
substances.’’ With respect to a
practitioner, 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,
DEA has held repeatedly that revocation
of a practitioner’s registration is the
appropriate sanction whenever she is no
longer authorized to dispense controlled
substances under the laws of the state in
which she practices. See, e.g., James L.
Hooper, M.D., 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); Frederick Marsh Blanton, M.D.,
43 FR at 27,617.
According to the Massachusetts
Controlled Substances Act, ‘‘every
person who . . . dispenses . . . any
controlled substance within the
commonwealth shall . . . register with
the commissioner of public health, in
accordance with his regulations.’’ Mass.
Gen. Laws ch. 94C, § 7(a) (Westlaw,
current through Chapter 44 of the 2020
2nd Annual Session). Further, the
automatic issuance of a controlled
substances registration to a physician is
only required when the physician is
‘‘duly authorized to practice his
profession in the commonwealth.’’
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94C § 7(f)
(Westlaw, current through Chapter 44 of
the 2020 2nd Annual Session).
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
27247
Here, the undisputed evidence in the
record is that Registrant voluntarily
agreed to cease practicing medicine in
Massachusetts.3 According to Julian A.
Abbey, M.D., 72 FR 10,788, 10,788
(2007), the MBRM announced by press
release dated November 9, 2005, that a
‘‘consequence’’ of a Voluntary
Agreement is that the ‘‘physician may
not prescribe controlled substances.’’
This result of a Voluntary Agreement is
consistent with the provision of
Massachusetts statute that the automatic
issuance of a controlled substances
registration to a physician is only
required when the physician is ‘‘duly
authorized to practice his profession in
the commonwealth.’’ Mass. Gen. Laws
ch. 94C § 7(f) (Westlaw, current through
Chapter 44 of the 2020 2nd Annual
Session). This result of a Voluntary
Agreement is also consistent with a
regulation implementing the
Massachusetts Controlled Substances
Act stating that a ‘‘registration is void if
the registrant’s underlying professional
licensure on which the registration is
based is suspended or revoked.’’ 105
Mass. Code Regs. § 700.120 (Westlaw,
current through Register No. 1413, dated
March 20, 2020).4
In sum, Registrant voluntarily agreed
to cease practicing medicine in
Massachusetts and, as a result, lacks
authority in Massachusetts to handle
controlled substances. He is, therefore,
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.
824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate
of Registration No. BW0913132 issued
to Michael Thomas Watkins, M.D. This
Order is effective June 8, 2020.
Uttam Dhillon,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020–09721 Filed 5–6–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
3 In addition, as already noted, MBRM’s online
records show that Registrant allowed his medical
license to expire.
4 Regarding 105 Mass. Code Regs. § 700.120, I
note that the Massachusetts Controlled Substances
Act explicitly authorizes the Public Health
Commissioner to ‘‘promulgate rules and regulations
relative to registration and control of the
manufacture, distribution, dispensing and
possession of controlled substances within the
commonwealth.’’ Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94C, § 6
(Westlaw, current through Chapter 44 of the 2020
2nd Annual Session).
E:\FR\FM\07MYN1.SGM
07MYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 89 (Thursday, May 7, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27246-27247]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09721]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Michael Thomas Watkins, M.D.; Decision and Order
On November 4, 2019, the Assistant Administrator, Diversion Control
Division, Drug Enforcement Administration (hereinafter, DEA or
Government), issued an Order to Show Cause (hereinafter, OSC) to
Michael Thomas Watkins, M.D. (hereinafter, Registrant) of Boston,
Massachusetts. OSC, at 1. The OSC proposed the revocation of
Registrant's Certificate of Registration No. BW0913132 and the denial
of ``any applications for renewal or modification of such registration
and any applications for any other DEA registrations.'' Id. It alleged
that Registrant is ``without authority to handle controlled substances
in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the state in which . . . [he is]
registered with the DEA.'' Id. at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3); 21 CFR
1301.37(b)).
Specifically, the OSC alleged that, ``[o]n or about May 30, 2019,
the Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine . . . ratified a
`Voluntary Agreement Not to Practice Medicine' that . . . [Registrant]
signed on May 22, 2019, in which . . . [he] agreed to `cease . . .
[his] practice of medicine in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
effective immediately.''' OSC, at 1. The OSC further alleged that
Registrant's ``Massachusetts Controlled Substances License was
terminated due to the Board action'' and, ``[t]hus, . . . [he is]
currently without authority to handle controlled substances in . . .
the state in which . . . [he is] registered with the DEA.'' Id. at 2.
The OSC concluded that ``DEA must revoke . . . [Registrant's] DEA
registration based on . . . [his] lack of authority to handle
controlled substances in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.'' Id.
The OSC notified Registrant 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. (citing 21 CFR
1301.43). The OSC also notified Registrant of the opportunity to submit
a corrective action plan. OSC, at 3 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(c)(2)(C)).
Adequacy of Service
In a Declaration dated February 24, 2020, a Diversion Investigator
(hereinafter, DI) assigned to the New England Division, stated that she
and another DI traveled to the address her investigation identified to
be Registrant's home on November 12, 2019. Request for Final Agency
Action dated February 26, 2020 (hereinafter, RFAA), Exhibit
(hereinafter, EX) 4 (Declaration of Service of Order to Show Cause
dated February 24, 2020), at 1. The DI stated that she and the other DI
showed their credentials to the ``woman who answered the door'' and
asked if Registrant was ``available.'' Id. The woman, according to the
DI's Declaration, responded that Registrant ``was not home.'' Id. After
verifying the woman's identity as Registrant's spouse, DI ``explained .
. . that Registrant was being served with the . . . [OSC] and handed
the . . . [OSC] to . . . [the woman] to give to Registrant.'' Id. The
woman signed a receipt for the OSC. Id.; see also id. at EX 4B (signed
DEA-12 receipt dated November 12, 2019), at 1. According to the DI's
Declaration, the woman ``stated that she would give the documents to
Registrant.'' Id. at EX 4, at 1.
The Government forwarded its RFAA, along with the evidentiary
record, to this office on February 26, 2020. In its RFAA, the
Government represented that ``[a]t least 30 days have passed since the
time the Order was served on Registrant. Registrant has not requested a
hearing and has not otherwise corresponded or communicated with DEA
regarding the Order . . . including the filing of any written statement
in lieu of a hearing.'' RFAA, at 2. The Government requested that
Registrant's registration be revoked, based on his having ``no valid
medical license in Massachusetts'' and his being ``without state
authority to handle controlled substances in Massachusetts, the state
where he is registered with DEA.'' Id. at 3.
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 November
12, 2019. Dale L. Taylor, M.D., 72 FR 30,855, 30,855 (2007) (concluding
that service was sufficient when OSC and Immediate Suspension Order
were left at registrant's residence with his wife); Sajjan Gangappa
Chikkannaiah, M.D., 54 FR 8608, 8608 (1989) (noticing OSC and Immediate
Suspension Order to registrant through the Federal Register when
family, wife, and staff were unable to provide any information on
registrant's whereabouts); Fredric J. Sloan, M.D., 52 FR 10,957, 10,957
(1987) (serving registrant's wife with OSC at their residence was
sufficient notice to registrant).
I also find that more than thirty days have now passed since the
Government accomplished service of the OSC. Further, based on the
Government's written representations and my review of the record, I
find that neither Registrant, nor anyone purporting to represent
Registrant, 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 the right
to a hearing and the 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.
BW0913132 at the registered address of Dept. of Surgery-Vascular-MGH,
15 Parkman Street, ACC 440, Boston, MA 02114. RFAA, EX 1 (Certification
of Registration Status for DEA No. BW0913132 dated December 4, 2019),
at 1. Pursuant to this registration, Registrant is authorized to
dispense controlled substances in schedules II
[[Page 27247]]
through V as a practitioner. Id. Registrant's registration expires on
May 31, 2020 and is in an ``active pending status.'' Id.
The Status of Registrant's State License
The Government submitted evidence that Registrant signed a
``Voluntary Agreement Not to Practice Medicine'' (hereinafter,
Voluntary Agreement) on May 22, 2019. RFAA, EX 3, at 3. The
Massachusetts Board of Registration in Medicine (hereinafter, MBRM)
accepted the Voluntary Agreement on May 23, 2019, and ratified it on
May 30, 2019. Id. According to the Voluntary Agreement, Registrant
ceased his practice of medicine in Massachusetts ``effective
immediately.'' Id. at 1. By signing the Voluntary Agreement, Registrant
also agreed that ``[a]ny violation of this [Voluntary] Agreement shall
be prima facie evidence for immediate summary suspension of my license
to practice medicine.'' Id. According to the records of the MBRM, of
which I take official notice, the Voluntary Agreement remains in
effect.\1\ MBRM Physician Search, https://www.mass.gov/orgs/board-of-registration-in-medicine (last visited April 28, 2020).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 of finding of fact
within fifteen 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 fifteen calendar days to
file a response. Any such motion and response may be filed and
served by email ([email protected]) or by mail to
Office of the Administrator, Attn: ADDO, Drug Enforcement
Administration, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, VA 22152.
\2\ The same record from the MBRM Physician Search shows that
Registrant's Massachusetts medical license expired on November 17,
2019. The RFAA does not address the expiration of Registrant's
Massachusetts medical license, although evidence submitted with the
RFAA about the Voluntary Agreement shows that Registrant's medical
license expired. RFAA, EX 5, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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, 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, DEA has held repeatedly that revocation of
a practitioner's registration is the appropriate sanction whenever she
is no longer authorized to dispense controlled substances under the
laws of the state in which she practices. See, e.g., James L. Hooper,
M.D., 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); Frederick Marsh
Blanton, M.D., 43 FR at 27,617.
According to the Massachusetts Controlled Substances Act, ``every
person who . . . dispenses . . . any controlled substance within the
commonwealth shall . . . register with the commissioner of public
health, in accordance with his regulations.'' Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94C,
Sec. 7(a) (Westlaw, current through Chapter 44 of the 2020 2nd Annual
Session). Further, the automatic issuance of a controlled substances
registration to a physician is only required when the physician is
``duly authorized to practice his profession in the commonwealth.''
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94C Sec. 7(f) (Westlaw, current through Chapter 44
of the 2020 2nd Annual Session).
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant
voluntarily agreed to cease practicing medicine in Massachusetts.\3\
According to Julian A. Abbey, M.D., 72 FR 10,788, 10,788 (2007), the
MBRM announced by press release dated November 9, 2005, that a
``consequence'' of a Voluntary Agreement is that the ``physician may
not prescribe controlled substances.'' This result of a Voluntary
Agreement is consistent with the provision of Massachusetts statute
that the automatic issuance of a controlled substances registration to
a physician is only required when the physician is ``duly authorized to
practice his profession in the commonwealth.'' Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94C
Sec. 7(f) (Westlaw, current through Chapter 44 of the 2020 2nd Annual
Session). This result of a Voluntary Agreement is also consistent with
a regulation implementing the Massachusetts Controlled Substances Act
stating that a ``registration is void if the registrant's underlying
professional licensure on which the registration is based is suspended
or revoked.'' 105 Mass. Code Regs. Sec. 700.120 (Westlaw, current
through Register No. 1413, dated March 20, 2020).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In addition, as already noted, MBRM's online records show
that Registrant allowed his medical license to expire.
\4\ Regarding 105 Mass. Code Regs. Sec. 700.120, I note that
the Massachusetts Controlled Substances Act explicitly authorizes
the Public Health Commissioner to ``promulgate rules and regulations
relative to registration and control of the manufacture,
distribution, dispensing and possession of controlled substances
within the commonwealth.'' Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 94C, Sec. 6
(Westlaw, current through Chapter 44 of the 2020 2nd Annual
Session).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, Registrant voluntarily agreed to cease practicing medicine
in Massachusetts and, as a result, lacks authority in Massachusetts to
handle controlled substances. He is, therefore, 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. 824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No.
BW0913132 issued to Michael Thomas Watkins, M.D. This Order is
effective June 8, 2020.
Uttam Dhillon,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-09721 Filed 5-6-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P