Matt M. Ahmadi, D.P.M.; Decision and Order, 59454-59455 [2022-21269]

Agencies

• Drug Enforcement Administration
• Department of Justice

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 189 (Friday, September 30, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59454-59455]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21269]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Matt M. Ahmadi, D.P.M.; Decision and Order

    On February 17, 2022, the Drug Enforcement Administration 
(hereinafter, DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause 
(hereinafter, OSC) to Matt M. Ahmadi, D.P.M. (hereinafter, Registrant). 
Request for Final Agency Action (hereinafter, RFAA), Exhibit 
(hereinafter, RFAAX) 2 (OSC), at 1; RFAA, at 1. The OSC proposed the 
revocation of Registrant's Certificate of Registration No. BA8767646 at 
the registered address of 26800 Crown Valley Pkwy, Suite 320, Mission 
Viejo, CA 92691. RFAAX 2, at 1. The OSC alleged that Registrant's 
registration should be revoked because Registrant is ``without 
authority to prescribe controlled substances in the State of 
California, the state in which [he is] registered with the DEA.'' Id. 
at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ According to Agency records, Registrant's Certificate of 
Registration No. BA8767646 expired on June 30, 2022. The fact that a 
Registrant allows his registration to expire during the pendency of 
an OSC does not impact the Agency's jurisdiction or prerogative 
under the Controlled Substances Act (hereinafter, CSA) to adjudicate 
the OSC to finality. Jeffrey D. Olsen, M.D., 84 FR 68,474 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency makes the following findings of fact based on the 
uncontroverted evidence submitted by the Government in its RFAA,\2\ 
which was submitted on September 6, 2022.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Government's RFAA is dated July 13, 2022. RFAA, at 5.
    \3\ Based on a Declaration from a DEA Diversion Investigator, 
the Agency finds that the Government's service of the OSC on 
Registrant was adequate. RFAAX 3, at 1-2. Further, based on the 
Government's assertions in its RFAA, the Agency finds that more than 
thirty days have passed since Registrant was served with the OSC and 
Registrant has neither requested a hearing nor submitted a written 
statement or corrective action plan and therefore has waived any 
such rights. RFAA, at 1, 3; see also 21 CFR 1301.43 and 21 U.S.C. 
824(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Findings of Fact

    Following an Accusation against Registrant from the State of 
California, Department of Consumer Affairs, Board of Podiatric Medicine 
(hereinafter, the Board), dated May 7, 2019, on March 27, 2020, an 
Administrative Law Judge from the State of California, Office of 
Administrative Hearings, issued a Proposed Decision revoking 
Registrant's podiatric medicine license. RFAAX 3, appendix A, at 3, 38, 
39. On June 16, 2020, the Board issued a Decision and Order accepting 
and adopting the Proposed Decision, effective July 16, 2020. Id. at 1.
    According to California's online records, of which the Agency takes 
official notice, Registrant's license is still revoked.\4\ Medical 
Board of California License Verification, https://www.mbc.ca.gov/License-Verification (last visited date of signature of this Order). 
Accordingly, the Agency finds that Registrant is not licensed to engage 
in the practice of medicine in California,

[[Page 59455]]

the state in which he is registered with the DEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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 the Agency's finding 
by filing a properly supported motion for reconsideration of 
findings of fact within fifteen calendar days of the date of this 
Order. 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].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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, 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 71371 (2011), 
pet. for rev. denied, 481 F. App'x 826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh 
Blanton, M.D., 43 FR 27616, 27617 (1978).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 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 
71371-72; Sheran Arden Yeates, M.D., 71 FR 39130, 39131 (2006); 
Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 FR 51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby Watts, 
M.D., 53 FR 11919, 11920 (1988); Frederick Marsh Blanton, 43 FR at 
27617.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to California statute, ``dispense'' means ``to deliver a 
controlled substance to an ultimate user or research subject by or 
pursuant to the lawful order of a practitioner, including the 
prescribing, furnishing, packaging, labeling, or compounding necessary 
to prepare the substance for that delivery.'' Cal. Health & Safety Code 
section 11010 (West 2022). Further, a ``practitioner'' means a person 
``licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, to distribute, 
dispense, conduct research with respect to, or administer, a controlled 
substance in the course of professional practice or research in this 
state.'' Id. at section 11026(c).
    Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant 
lacks authority to practice medicine in California. As discussed above, 
a physician must be a licensed practitioner to dispense a controlled 
substance in California. Thus, because Registrant lacks authority to 
practice medicine in California and, therefore, is not authorized to 
handle controlled substances in California, Registrant is not eligible 
to maintain a DEA registration. Accordingly, the Agency 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. 
BA8767646 issued to Matt M. Ahmadi, D.P.M. 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 applications of Matt M. Ahmadi, D.P.M., to renew or 
modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of 
Matt M. Ahmadi, D.P.M., for additional registration in California. This 
Order is effective October 31, 2022.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on 
September 26, 2022, by Administrator Anne Milgram. That document with 
the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For 
administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of 
the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal 
Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the 
document in electronic format for publication, as an official document 
of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect 
of this document upon publication in the Federal Register.

Heather Achbach,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Drug Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 2022-21269 Filed 9-29-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P