Milad I. Shaker, M.D.; Decision and Order, 10335-10337 [2021-03358]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 32 / Friday, February 19, 2021 / Notices destabilization, channel widening, arroyo mouth management, construction of inset floodplains, construction of wetland depressions, and use of supplemental water for on-site irrigation. Based on a review of the facts and analyses contained in the Amended Draft EA, the USIBWC has selected five projects as the Preferred Alternatives: Alternative D—Broad Canyon Arroyo, Alternative F—Las Cruces Effluent, Alternative G—Mesilla Valley Bosque State Park (MVBSP), Alternative H— Downstream of Courchesne Bridge, and Alternative J—Trujillo Arroyo. Alternatives Las Cruces Effluent and Downstream of Courchesne Bridge would require engineering designs prior to construction, while Alternatives Broad Canyon Arroyo and Trujillo Restoration Site, which are smaller and less complicated projects, could be constructed from conceptual designs. Downstream of Courchesne Bridge would be implemented as part of compensatory mitigation for future levee improvement projects. All alternatives would require appropriate permits from the United States Army Corps of Engineers for dredge and fill of Waters of the United States, per the Clean Water Act Sections 404 and 401. Potential impacts on natural, cultural, and other resources were evaluated in the Draft EA. The USIBWC has prepared a FONSI for the Preferred Alternatives, based on a review of the facts and analyses contained in the amended Draft EA. Availability: The electronic version of the amended Draft EA is available at the USIBWC web page: https:// www.ibwc.gov/EMD/EIS_EA_Public_ Comment.html. Dated: February 10, 2021. Jennifer Pen˜a, Chief Legal Counsel, International Boundary and Water Commission, United States Section. [FR Doc. 2021–03303 Filed 2–18–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7010–01–P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES [Investigation No. 337–TA–1217] Enforcement Proceeding; Certain Blowers and Components Thereof; Notice of Institution of Formal Enforcement Proceeding U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:07 Feb 18, 2021 Jkt 253001 Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has instituted a formal enforcement proceeding relating to the Consent Order issued on November 12, 2020, in the above-referenced investigation. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cathy Chen, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202– 205–2392. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. For help accessing EDIS, please email EDIS3Help@usitc.gov. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission’s TDD terminal on (202) 205–1810. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission instituted the original investigation on September 8, 2020, based on a complaint filed by Regal Beloit America, Inc (‘‘Regal’’) of Beloit, Wisconsin. 85 FR 55491–92 (Sep. 8, 2020). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain blowers and components thereof by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1, 2, 7–10, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 8,079,834 (‘‘the ’834 patent’’). Id. at 55492. The Commission’s notice of investigation named as respondents East West Manufacturing, LLC of Atlanta, Georgia, and East West Industries of Binh Duong, Vietnam (collectively, ‘‘Respondents’’). Id. at 55492. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (‘‘OUII’’) did not participate as a party in the original investigation. Id. On October 14, 2020, Respondents filed a motion to terminate the investigation with respect to themselves based upon a consent order stipulation. The motion included a consent order stipulation and a proposed consent order. On October 22, 2020, the presiding administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) issued an initial determination (‘‘ID’’) granting the motion and terminating the investigation with respect to Respondents based on the entry of a consent order. Order No. 6 at 3 (Oct. 22, 2020). Thereafter, the Commission SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 10335 determined not to review the ID and issued a Consent Order. 85 FR 73511 (Nov. 18, 2020). Respondents were therefore terminated from the original investigation and the investigation was terminated in its entirety. Id. On January 15, 2021, Regal filed a complaint requesting that the Commission institute a formal enforcement proceeding under Commission Rule 210.75 to investigate the alleged violation of the Consent Order by Respondents. Having examined the enforcement complaint and the supporting documents, the Commission has determined to institute a formal enforcement proceeding, pursuant to 19 CFR 210.75(a), to determine whether a violation of the Consent Order, issued on November 12, 2020, in the original investigation has occurred and to determine what, if any, enforcement measures are appropriate. The named respondents are East West Manufacturing, LLC of Atlanta, Georgia, and East West Industries of Binh Duong, Vietnam. OUII is also named as a party. The Commission vote for this determination took place on February 16, 2021. The authority for the Commission’s determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and in Part 210 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR part p10. By order of the Commission. Issued: February 16, 2021. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2021–03409 Filed 2–18–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Milad I. Shaker, M.D.; Decision and Order On October 5, 2020, the Assistant Administrator, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration (hereinafter, Government), signed an Order to Show Cause (hereinafter, OSC) addressed to Milad I. Shaker, M.D. (hereinafter, Registrant). OSC, at 1. The OSC proposed the revocation of Registrant’s Certificate of Registration No. FS1471818. Id. It alleged that Registrant is without ‘‘authority to handle controlled substances in the State of Pennsylvania, the state in which [Registrant is] registered with DEA.’’ OSC, at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)). E:\FR\FM\19FEN1.SGM 19FEN1 10336 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 32 / Friday, February 19, 2021 / Notices I. Background The OSC alleged that the Pennsylvania State Board of Medicine (hereinafter, Board) issued a Preliminary Order October 29, 2019. Id. This Preliminary Order, according to the OSC, indefinitely suspended Registrant’s Pennsylvania Medical Physician and Surgeon license following the Board’s ‘‘finding of [Registrant’s] noncompliance with conditions of probation approved by the Board on December 18, 2018.’’ 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. at 2 (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)). tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES a. Adequacy of Service According to the declaration of a DEA Diversion Investigator (hereinafter, DI), DEA made arrangements for service of the OSC on Registrant, while he was incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary (USP)—Hazelton correctional facility in Bruceton, West Virginia. Request for Final Agency Action (hereinafter, RFAA) Exhibit (hereinafter, RFAAX) 10 (Declaration of DI), at 1–3. To accomplish service, DEA established a point of contact with Special Investigative Services at USP— Hazelton, and made arrangements to serve the OSC on Registrant by hand delivery. Id. at 3; RFAAX 5 (emails to and from Special Investigative Services, dated October 20–21, 2020). According to the emails, the OSC was served on Registrant on October 21, 2020. RFAAX 5, at 1; RFAAX 10, at 3. In its RFAA, the Government represents that ‘‘more than 30-days have passed since Registrant received the [OSC]’’ and that ‘‘Registrant has not submitted to DEA a request for hearing.’’ RFAA, at 2; see also RFAAX 6 (email, dated December 17, 2020, confirming no correspondence from Registrant). The Government also represents that DEA has not received ‘‘any other written correspondence, telephonic communication, or any other communication from Registrant, or any representative on his behalf in response to the [OSC].’’ RFAA, at 4. I find that more than thirty days have now passed since the Government accomplished service of the OSC. Accordingly, I find that Registrant has waived the right to a hearing and the right to submit a written statement and corrective action VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:07 Feb 18, 2021 Jkt 253001 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 1301.46. II. Findings of Fact a. Registrant’s DEA Registration Registrant is the holder of DEA Certificate of Registration No. FS1471818 at the registered address of 308 Bessemer Road, Suite 100, Mount Pleasant, Pennsylvania 15666. RFAA, at 2; RFAAX 1 (Controlled Substance Registration Certificate); RFAAX 2 (Certification of Registration History). Pursuant to this registration, Registrant is authorized to dispense controlled substances in schedules II through V as a practitioner. Id. Registrant’s registration expires on February 28, 2021, and is ‘‘in an active pending status.’’ RFAAX 2, at 1. b. The Status of Registrant’s State License On October 2, 2018, Registrant was indicted by a grand jury for fifty-four felony charges, which appear to be related to Registrant’s practice of medicine (hereinafter, Indictment).1 RFAAX 3 (Board’s Preliminary Order with Exhibits), at 37–47. As a result of the Indictment, the Board petitioned for immediate temporary suspension of Registrant’s license, alleging that Registrant was ‘‘guilty of unprofessional conduct by failing to conform to the quality standard of the profession,’’ and an Order of Temporary Suspension was issued on October 9, 2018. Id. at 15; see also RFAAX 3, at 12. On December 13, 2018, Registrant and the Board entered into a Consent Agreement and Order (hereinafter, Consent Agreement). Id. at 11–36. Pursuant to the Consent Agreement, the Board indefinitely suspended Registrant’s state license, but immediately stayed the suspension ‘‘in favor of a period of indefinite probation.’’ Id. at 16–17 (emphasis omitted). The Board required that Registrant satisfy a number of conditions during his indefinite probation.2 Id. at 17–26. On October 29, 1 The felony charges included allegations that Registrant ‘‘issued prescriptions for controlled substances to [two patients] in return for sexual favors;’’ issued thirty-six Schedule II controlled substance prescriptions ‘‘outside of the usual course of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose;’’ issued 16 Schedule IV controlled substances ‘‘outside of the usual course of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose;’’ and engaged in two ‘‘[f]elony counts of Health Care Fraud.’’ RFAAX 3, at 13–14. 2 One of the conditions required that Registrant ‘‘contract for the services of a Board Approved PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 2019, the Board made a probable cause determination that Registrant violated the terms of the Consent Agreement and issued a Preliminary Order. Id. at 2. The Preliminary Order stated ‘‘the stay of the suspension of [Registrant’s] license is now VACATED, the period of probation is now TERMINATED, and [Registrant’s] license to practice as a physician and surgeon, license number MD437512, along with any other licenses . . . are now actively indefinitely SUSPENDED.’’ Id. (emphasis in original). Registrant was ordered to ‘‘immediately cease practicing the profession.’’ Id. The Preliminary Order’s indefinite suspension of Registrant’s state medical license served as the basis for the OSC’s allegation that Registrant lacked state authority to handle controlled substances. RFAAX 10, at 2; OSC, at 1. On April 30, 2020, the Board issued a Notice and Order of Automatic Suspension, which automatically suspended Registrant’s license to practice medicine and surgery based on Registrant’s ‘‘conviction in Federal court for unlawful distribution of a Schedule II controlled substance’’ (hereinafter, second suspension). RFAAX 8 (Final Order dated December 1, 2020 3), at 5. The second suspension was affirmed by the Board in a Final Order dated December 1, 2020. The Final Order was retroactive to July 28, 2020, and suspended Registrant’s license to practice medicine and surgery for at least 10 years.4 Id. at 1, 18. Similar to the Preliminary Order, the Final Order provided that Registrant ‘‘shall immediately CEASE the practice of Practice Monitor,’’ ‘‘allow the Practice Monitor access to all aspects of his practice,’’ and allow the Practice Monitor a minimum of ‘‘[m]onthly inperson overview[s] . . . to determine that the monitor’s directions are being implemented.’’ RFAAX 3 22–23. On September 3, 2019, Registrant’s practice monitor notified Registrant and the Board that they were ‘‘ceasing all services . . . effective immediately’’ based on Registrant’s failure to allow two of the required monthly visits and his failure to respond to communications. Id. at 50–51. On October 29, 2019, a Petition for Appropriate Relief was filed with the Board seeking suspension of Registrant’s license because ‘‘[Registrant’s] failure to fully cooperate and successfully comply with the monitoring terms and conditions of the probation [was] a violation of [the Consent Agreement].’’ Id. at 9. 3 DEA obtained a copy of the Board’s Final Order after the OSC was issued to Registrant. RFAAX 10, at 3. The Final Order is not material as the record is clear that Registrant’s license had been suspended since the Preliminary Order issued on October 29, 2019. 4 The suspension of the license was retroactive to May 20, 2020. It appears that as of May 20, 2020, there were two concurrent suspension applied to Registrant’s license. The number of suspensions is not material as the record is clear that Registrant’s license had been suspended since October 29, 2019. E:\FR\FM\19FEN1.SGM 19FEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 32 / Friday, February 19, 2021 / Notices medicine and surgery.’’ Id. at 18 (emphasis in original). According to DI, on December 17, 2019, DI queried the Pennsylvania Department of State licensing verification website at https:// www.pals.pa.gov/#/page/searchresult and determined that Registrant’s medical physician license was still suspended at that time and that Registrant was without authorization to handle controlled substances or practice medicine in Pennsylvania. RFAAX 10, at 3. According to Pennsylvania’s online records, of which I take official notice, Registrant’s license is still revoked.5 Pennsylvania Licensing System Verification, https://www.pals.pa.gov/#/ page/search (last visited date of signature of this Order). Accordingly, I find that Registrant currently is neither licensed to engage in the practice of medicine nor registered to dispense controlled substances in Pennsylvania, the state in which Registrant is registered with the DEA. tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES III. 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., 5 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 shall be filed and served by email to the other party and to Office of the Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration at dea.addo.attorneys@dea.usdoj.gov. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:07 Feb 18, 2021 Jkt 253001 James L. Hooper, M.D., 76 FR 71,371 (2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 F. App’x 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., James L. Hooper, 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, 43 FR at 27,617. Under the Pennsylvania Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, ‘‘no controlled substance in Schedule II shall be dispensed without an electronic prescription of a practitioner.’’ 35 PA. Stat. and Const. Stat. Ann. § 780–111(a) (West October 24, 2019). Further, ‘‘no controlled substance in Schedule III, IV or V shall be dispensed without an electronic prescription of a practitioner.’’ Id. at § 780–111(b). The definition of ‘‘practitioner,’’ as used in the state 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 Registrant currently lacks authority to practice medicine in Pennsylvania. As already discussed, a physician must be a licensed practitioner to dispense a controlled substance in Pennsylvania. Thus, because Registrant lacks a license to PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 10337 practice medicine in Pennsylvania and, therefore, is not authorized to handle controlled substances in Pennsylvania, Registrant 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. 824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No. FS1471818 issued to Milad I. Shaker, M.D. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f), I hereby deny any pending application of Milad I. Shaker, M.D. to renew or modify this registration or for any other registration in Pennsylvania. This Order is effective March 22, 2021. D. Christopher Evans, Acting Administrator. [FR Doc. 2021–03358 Filed 2–18–21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–09–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. 17–33] Michael W. Carlton, M.D.; Decision and Order On April 18, 2017, a former Assistant Administrator, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration (hereinafter, DEA or Government), issued an Order to Show Cause (hereinafter, OSC) to Michael W. Carlton, M.D. (hereinafter, Respondent). Administrative Law Judge Exhibit (hereinafter, ALJX) 1 (Order to Show Cause), at 1. The OSC proposed the revocation of Respondent’s Certificate of Registration No. BC3579969 pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4) ‘‘because [his] continued registration is inconsistent with the public interest . . . .’’ Id. (citing 21 U.S.C. 823(f)). I. Procedural History The OSC alleged that ‘‘between May 8, 2015 and November 21, 2015, on approximately forty-two (42) occasions, [Respondent] unlawfully prescribed controlled substances to thirty-one (31) patients by issuing prescriptions for other than a legitimate medical purpose and outside the usual course of professional practice.’’ OSC, at 1–2. The OSC alleged violations of 21 U.S.C. 841(a), 21 CFR 1306.04(a), and Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 32–1401(27). Id. at 2. The OSC stated that ‘‘a medical expert has concluded that [Respondent’s] issuance of the [forty-two] prescriptions E:\FR\FM\19FEN1.SGM 19FEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 32 (Friday, February 19, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10335-10337]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03358]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Milad I. Shaker, M.D.; Decision and Order

    On October 5, 2020, the Assistant Administrator, Diversion Control 
Division, Drug Enforcement Administration (hereinafter, Government), 
signed an Order to Show Cause (hereinafter, OSC) addressed to Milad I. 
Shaker, M.D. (hereinafter, Registrant). OSC, at 1. The OSC proposed the 
revocation of Registrant's Certificate of Registration No. FS1471818. 
Id. It alleged that Registrant is without ``authority to handle 
controlled substances in the State of Pennsylvania, the state in which 
[Registrant is] registered with DEA.'' OSC, at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 
824(a)(3)).

[[Page 10336]]

I. Background

    The OSC alleged that the Pennsylvania State Board of Medicine 
(hereinafter, Board) issued a Preliminary Order October 29, 2019. Id. 
This Preliminary Order, according to the OSC, indefinitely suspended 
Registrant's Pennsylvania Medical Physician and Surgeon license 
following the Board's ``finding of [Registrant's] noncompliance with 
conditions of probation approved by the Board on December 18, 2018.'' 
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. at 2 (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)).

a. Adequacy of Service

    According to the declaration of a DEA Diversion Investigator 
(hereinafter, DI), DEA made arrangements for service of the OSC on 
Registrant, while he was incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary 
(USP)--Hazelton correctional facility in Bruceton, West Virginia. 
Request for Final Agency Action (hereinafter, RFAA) Exhibit 
(hereinafter, RFAAX) 10 (Declaration of DI), at 1-3. To accomplish 
service, DEA established a point of contact with Special Investigative 
Services at USP--Hazelton, and made arrangements to serve the OSC on 
Registrant by hand delivery. Id. at 3; RFAAX 5 (emails to and from 
Special Investigative Services, dated October 20-21, 2020). According 
to the emails, the OSC was served on Registrant on October 21, 2020. 
RFAAX 5, at 1; RFAAX 10, at 3.
    In its RFAA, the Government represents that ``more than 30-days 
have passed since Registrant received the [OSC]'' and that ``Registrant 
has not submitted to DEA a request for hearing.'' RFAA, at 2; see also 
RFAAX 6 (email, dated December 17, 2020, confirming no correspondence 
from Registrant). The Government also represents that DEA has not 
received ``any other written correspondence, telephonic communication, 
or any other communication from Registrant, or any representative on 
his behalf in response to the [OSC].'' RFAA, at 4. I find that more 
than thirty days have now passed since the Government accomplished 
service of the OSC. 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 1301.46.

II. Findings of Fact

a. Registrant's DEA Registration

    Registrant is the holder of DEA Certificate of Registration No. 
FS1471818 at the registered address of 308 Bessemer Road, Suite 100, 
Mount Pleasant, Pennsylvania 15666. RFAA, at 2; RFAAX 1 (Controlled 
Substance Registration Certificate); RFAAX 2 (Certification of 
Registration History). Pursuant to this registration, Registrant is 
authorized to dispense controlled substances in schedules II through V 
as a practitioner. Id. Registrant's registration expires on February 
28, 2021, and is ``in an active pending status.'' RFAAX 2, at 1.

b. The Status of Registrant's State License

    On October 2, 2018, Registrant was indicted by a grand jury for 
fifty-four felony charges, which appear to be related to Registrant's 
practice of medicine (hereinafter, Indictment).\1\ RFAAX 3 (Board's 
Preliminary Order with Exhibits), at 37-47. As a result of the 
Indictment, the Board petitioned for immediate temporary suspension of 
Registrant's license, alleging that Registrant was ``guilty of 
unprofessional conduct by failing to conform to the quality standard of 
the profession,'' and an Order of Temporary Suspension was issued on 
October 9, 2018. Id. at 15; see also RFAAX 3, at 12. On December 13, 
2018, Registrant and the Board entered into a Consent Agreement and 
Order (hereinafter, Consent Agreement). Id. at 11-36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The felony charges included allegations that Registrant 
``issued prescriptions for controlled substances to [two patients] 
in return for sexual favors;'' issued thirty-six Schedule II 
controlled substance prescriptions ``outside of the usual course of 
professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose;'' 
issued 16 Schedule IV controlled substances ``outside of the usual 
course of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical 
purpose;'' and engaged in two ``[f]elony counts of Health Care 
Fraud.'' RFAAX 3, at 13-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the Consent Agreement, the Board indefinitely suspended 
Registrant's state license, but immediately stayed the suspension ``in 
favor of a period of indefinite probation.'' Id. at 16-17 (emphasis 
omitted). The Board required that Registrant satisfy a number of 
conditions during his indefinite probation.\2\ Id. at 17-26. On October 
29, 2019, the Board made a probable cause determination that Registrant 
violated the terms of the Consent Agreement and issued a Preliminary 
Order. Id. at 2. The Preliminary Order stated ``the stay of the 
suspension of [Registrant's] license is now VACATED, the period of 
probation is now TERMINATED, and [Registrant's] license to practice as 
a physician and surgeon, license number MD437512, along with any other 
licenses . . . are now actively indefinitely SUSPENDED.'' Id. (emphasis 
in original). Registrant was ordered to ``immediately cease practicing 
the profession.'' Id. The Preliminary Order's indefinite suspension of 
Registrant's state medical license served as the basis for the OSC's 
allegation that Registrant lacked state authority to handle controlled 
substances. RFAAX 10, at 2; OSC, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ One of the conditions required that Registrant ``contract 
for the services of a Board Approved Practice Monitor,'' ``allow the 
Practice Monitor access to all aspects of his practice,'' and allow 
the Practice Monitor a minimum of ``[m]onthly in-person overview[s] 
. . . to determine that the monitor's directions are being 
implemented.'' RFAAX 3 22-23. On September 3, 2019, Registrant's 
practice monitor notified Registrant and the Board that they were 
``ceasing all services . . . effective immediately'' based on 
Registrant's failure to allow two of the required monthly visits and 
his failure to respond to communications. Id. at 50-51. On October 
29, 2019, a Petition for Appropriate Relief was filed with the Board 
seeking suspension of Registrant's license because ``[Registrant's] 
failure to fully cooperate and successfully comply with the 
monitoring terms and conditions of the probation [was] a violation 
of [the Consent Agreement].'' Id. at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 30, 2020, the Board issued a Notice and Order of Automatic 
Suspension, which automatically suspended Registrant's license to 
practice medicine and surgery based on Registrant's ``conviction in 
Federal court for unlawful distribution of a Schedule II controlled 
substance'' (hereinafter, second suspension). RFAAX 8 (Final Order 
dated December 1, 2020 \3\), at 5. The second suspension was affirmed 
by the Board in a Final Order dated December 1, 2020. The Final Order 
was retroactive to July 28, 2020, and suspended Registrant's license to 
practice medicine and surgery for at least 10 years.\4\ Id. at 1, 18. 
Similar to the Preliminary Order, the Final Order provided that 
Registrant ``shall immediately CEASE the practice of

[[Page 10337]]

medicine and surgery.'' Id. at 18 (emphasis in original).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ DEA obtained a copy of the Board's Final Order after the OSC 
was issued to Registrant. RFAAX 10, at 3. The Final Order is not 
material as the record is clear that Registrant's license had been 
suspended since the Preliminary Order issued on October 29, 2019.
    \4\ The suspension of the license was retroactive to May 20, 
2020. It appears that as of May 20, 2020, there were two concurrent 
suspension applied to Registrant's license. The number of 
suspensions is not material as the record is clear that Registrant's 
license had been suspended since October 29, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to DI, on December 17, 2019, DI queried the Pennsylvania 
Department of State licensing verification website at https://www.pals.pa.gov/#/page/searchresult and determined that Registrant's 
medical physician license was still suspended at that time and that 
Registrant was without authorization to handle controlled substances or 
practice medicine in Pennsylvania. RFAAX 10, at 3. According to 
Pennsylvania's online records, of which I take official notice, 
Registrant's license is still revoked.\5\ Pennsylvania Licensing System 
Verification, https://www.pals.pa.gov/#/page/search (last visited date 
of signature of this Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 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 shall be filed and 
served by email to the other party and to Office of the 
Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration at 
[email protected].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, I find that Registrant currently is neither licensed 
to engage in the practice of medicine nor registered to dispense 
controlled substances in Pennsylvania, the state in which Registrant is 
registered with the DEA.

III. 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 F. App'x 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., James L. Hooper, 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, 43 
FR at 27,617.
    Under the Pennsylvania Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and 
Cosmetic Act, ``no controlled substance in Schedule II shall be 
dispensed without an electronic prescription of a practitioner.'' 35 
PA. Stat. and Const. Stat. Ann. Sec.  780-111(a) (West October 24, 
2019). Further, ``no controlled substance in Schedule III, IV or V 
shall be dispensed without an electronic prescription of a 
practitioner.'' Id. at Sec.  780-111(b). The definition of 
``practitioner,'' as used in the state 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 Registrant 
currently lacks authority to practice medicine in Pennsylvania. As 
already discussed, a physician must be a licensed practitioner to 
dispense a controlled substance in Pennsylvania. Thus, because 
Registrant lacks a license to practice medicine in Pennsylvania and, 
therefore, is not authorized to handle controlled substances in 
Pennsylvania, Registrant 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. 824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No. 
FS1471818 issued to Milad I. Shaker, M.D. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 
0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f), I hereby 
deny any pending application of Milad I. Shaker, M.D. to renew or 
modify this registration or for any other registration in Pennsylvania. 
This Order is effective March 22, 2021.

D. Christopher Evans,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2021-03358 Filed 2-18-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.