Thomas Blair, M.D.; Decision and Order, 59455-59456 [2022-21274]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 189 / Friday, September 30, 2022 / Notices the state in which he is registered with the DEA. jspears on DSK121TN23PROD 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 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 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 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. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:52 Sep 29, 2022 Jkt 256001 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 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Thomas Blair, M.D.; Decision and Order On May 25, 2022, the Drug Enforcement Administration (hereinafter, DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (hereinafter, OSC) to Thomas Blair, M.D. (hereinafter, Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action (hereinafter, RFAA), Exhibit (hereinafter, RFAAX) D PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 59455 (OSC), at 1, 3. The OSC proposed the revocation of Registrant’s Certificate of Registration No. AB1253880 at the registered address of 725 W. La Veta Avenue, Suite 110, Orange, CA 92868. Id. 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)). The Agency makes the following findings of fact based on the uncontroverted evidence offered by the Government in its RFAA, which was submitted on September 8, 2022.1 Findings of Fact On November 2, 2021, an Administrative Law Judge from the State of California, Office of Administrative Hearings, issued a Decision and Order suspending Registrant’s California medical license. RFAAX B, at 2, 35. According to California’s online records, of which the Agency takes official notice, Registrant’s license is still suspended.2 Medical Board of California License Verification, https://www.mbc.ca.gov/LicenseVerification (last visited date of signature of this Order). Accordingly, the Agency finds that Registrant is not currently licensed to engage in the practice of medicine in California, the state in which he is registered with the DEA. Discussion Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to 1 Based on a Declaration from a DEA Diversion Investigator, the Agency finds that the Government’s service of the OSC on Registrant was adequate. RFAA, Declaration 1, at 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). 2 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 dea.addo.attorneys@dea.usdoj.gov. E:\FR\FM\30SEN1.SGM 30SEN1 59456 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 189 / Friday, September 30, 2022 / Notices 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).3 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 § 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 § 11026(c). Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant currently 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 currently lacks authority to practice medicine in California and, therefore, is not currently 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. AB1253880 issued to Thomas Blair, 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 applications of Thomas Blair, M.D., to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of Thomas Blair, M.D., 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. 2022–21274 Filed 9–29–22; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–09–P jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES 3 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. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:52 Sep 29, 2022 Jkt 256001 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. 21–24] Lewisville Medical Pharmacy; Decision and Order I. Introduction On June 9, 2021, the United States Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration (hereinafter, Agency) issued an Order to Show Cause and Immediate Suspension of Registration (hereinafter collectively, OSC) to Lewisville Medical Pharmacy (hereinafter, Respondent) of Lewisville, Texas. OSC, at 1–2, 11. The OSC immediately suspended, and proposed PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 the revocation of, Respondent’s Drug Enforcement Administration (hereinafter, DEA) registration No. FL2190332, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(d) and (a)(4), respectively, ‘‘because . . . [Respondent’s] continued registration constitutes ‘an imminent danger to the public health or safety’ ’’ and ‘‘because . . . [Respondent’s] continued registration is inconsistent with the public interest, as that term is defined in 21 U.S.C. 823(f).’’ Id. at 1. The OSC more specifically alleged that, according to Respondent’s ‘‘dispensing information’’ from at least March 2, 2018, through at least March 20, 2021, Respondent ‘‘repeatedly filled prescriptions for Schedule III through V controlled substances in the face of obvious and unresolved red flags of drug abuse and diversion [hereinafter, red flags], and therefore, in violation of both federal and Texas law,’’ including 21 CFR 1306.04(a) and Texas Health & Safety Code § 481.074(a).1 Id. at 2. The OSC includes allegations about pattern prescribing (which it defines as prescribing the same controlled substance in identical or substantially similar quantities to multiple individuals indicating a lack of individualized therapy), distance (which it defines as traveling abnormally long distances to fill a controlled substance prescription), cash payment (which it defines as a common red flag of abuse and diversion as it permits an individual to avoid scrutiny associated with the use of insurance as part of the payment process), and shared address (which it defines as multiple persons with the same address presenting the same or substantially similar controlled substance prescriptions from the same practitioner) red flags.2 Id. at 4–10. Respondent timely requested a hearing. Recommended Rulings, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision of the Administrative Law 1 The Agency is only adjudicating controlled substance prescriptions in the record that are dated on or after September 16, 2018. See 22 TAC § 291.29 (effective September 16, 2018). 2 The phrase ‘‘red flag’’ is used in the record before the Agency with varying accuracy. The testimony of the Government’s expert accurately defines the phrase and a Texas pharmacist’s obligation when presented with a controlled substance prescription, that is, consistent with federal law. See, e.g., Tr. 555–56; infra, section II.A. The use of the phrase in Respondent’s case, on the other hand, is not always fully accurate. Infra, section II.B. When Respondent’s case accurately acknowledges circumstances that are red flags, it rarely states a Texas pharmacist’s ensuing obligation accurately. Id. When Respondent uses the phrase when questioning the Government’s expert, the context out of which the expert responds is an accurate understanding of the phrase regardless of what Respondent meant by its question. E:\FR\FM\30SEN1.SGM 30SEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 189 (Friday, September 30, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59455-59456]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21274]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Thomas Blair, M.D.; Decision and Order

    On May 25, 2022, the Drug Enforcement Administration (hereinafter, 
DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (hereinafter, OSC) to 
Thomas Blair, M.D. (hereinafter, Registrant). Request for Final Agency 
Action (hereinafter, RFAA), Exhibit (hereinafter, RFAAX) D (OSC), at 1, 
3. The OSC proposed the revocation of Registrant's Certificate of 
Registration No. AB1253880 at the registered address of 725 W. La Veta 
Avenue, Suite 110, Orange, CA 92868. Id. 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)).
    The Agency makes the following findings of fact based on the 
uncontroverted evidence offered by the Government in its RFAA, which 
was submitted on September 8, 2022.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Based on a Declaration from a DEA Diversion Investigator, 
the Agency finds that the Government's service of the OSC on 
Registrant was adequate. RFAA, Declaration 1, at 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

    On November 2, 2021, an Administrative Law Judge from the State of 
California, Office of Administrative Hearings, issued a Decision and 
Order suspending Registrant's California medical license. RFAAX B, at 
2, 35. According to California's online records, of which the Agency 
takes official notice, Registrant's license is still suspended.\2\ 
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 
currently licensed to engage in the practice of medicine in California, 
the state in which he is registered with the DEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 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

[[Page 59456]]

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).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  11026(c).
    Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant 
currently 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 
currently lacks authority to practice medicine in California and, 
therefore, is not currently 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. 
AB1253880 issued to Thomas Blair, 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 applications of Thomas Blair, M.D., to renew or modify 
this registration, as well as any other pending application of Thomas 
Blair, M.D., 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. 2022-21274 Filed 9-29-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.