Robert Rowen, M.D.; Decision and Order, 66139-66140 [2024-18095]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2024 / Notices testimony and presentation slides in connection with their presentation at the hearing by no later than 4:00 p.m. on October 21, 2024. The hearing will be held at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building at 9:30 a.m. on October 22, 2024. The deadline for filing posthearing briefs is October 29, 2024. Any person who has not entered an appearance as a party to the investigations may submit a written statement of information pertinent to the subject of the investigations, including statements of support or opposition to the petition(s), on or before October 29, 2024. On November 12, 2024, the Commission will make available to parties all information on which they have not had an opportunity to comment. Parties may submit final comments on this information on or before November 14, 2024. The deadline for filing appearances is 21 days before the hearing. For further information concerning this proceeding, see the Commission’s notice cited above and the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207). Authority: These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to § 207.21 of the Commission’s rules. By order of the Commission. Issued: August 8, 2024. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2024–18086 Filed 8–13–24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1 Robert Rowen, M.D.; Decision and Order On May 23, 2023, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Robert Rowen M.D. (Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 1, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed the revocation of Registrant’s Certification of Registration No. AR9231919 at the registered address of 2200 County Center Dr., Ste. C, Santa Rosa, CA 95403. Id. at 1. The OSC alleged that Registrant’s registration should be revoked because Registrant is ‘‘currently without authority to prescribe, administer, dispense, or otherwise handle controlled substances in the State of California, the state in VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Aug 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 which [he is] is registered with DEA.’’ Id. at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).1 The OSC notified Registrant of his right to file with DEA a written request for hearing, and that if he failed to file such a request, he would be deemed to have waived his right to a hearing and be in default. Id. (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). Here, Registrant did not request a hearing. RFAA, at 2.2 ‘‘A default, unless excused, shall be deemed to constitute a waiver of the registrant’s/applicant’s right to a hearing and an admission of the factual allegations of the [OSC].’’ 21 CFR 1301.43(e). Further, ‘‘[i]n the event that a registrant . . . is deemed to be in default . . . DEA may then file a request for final agency action with the Administrator, along with a record to support its request. In such circumstances, the Administrator may enter a default final order pursuant to [21 CFR] § 1316.67.’’ Id. § 1301.43(f)(1). Here, the Government has requested final agency action based on Registrant’s default pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(c), (f), 1301.46. RFAA, at 1; see also 21 CFR 1316.67. Findings of Fact The Agency finds that, in light of Registrant’s default, the factual allegations in the OSC are admitted. According to the OSC, effective September 1, 2022, the Medical Board of California suspended Registrant’s California medical license. RFAAX 1, at 1. According to California online records, of which the Agency takes official notice, Registrant’s California medical license has since been revoked.3 California DCA License 1 According to Agency records, Registrant’s registration expired on April 30, 2024. 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 (CSA) to adjudicate the OSC to finality. Jeffrey D. Olsen, M.D., 84 FR 68474, 68476–79 (2019). 2 Based on the Government’s submissions in its RFAA dated October 16, 2023, the Agency finds that service of the OSC on Registrant was adequate. Specifically, the submitted Declaration from a DEA Diversion Investigator (DI) indicates that Registrant was personally served with the OSC on May 24, 2023. RFAAX 2, at 1. The DI also stated in his Declaration that he personally witnessed Registrant sign and date a duplicate copy of the OSC to verify receipt. Id.; see also id. at 5. 3 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, PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 66139 Search, https://search.dca.ca.gov (last visited date of signature of this Order). Accordingly, the Agency finds that Registrant is not licensed to practice medicine in California, the state in which he is registered with DEA. Discussion Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under 21 U.S.C. 823 ‘‘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, D.O., 76 FR 71371, 71372 (2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 F. App’x 826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh Blanton, D.O., 43 FR 27616, 27617 (1978).4 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 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 the DEA Office of the Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration at dea.addo.attorneys@dea.gov. 4 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(g)(1). 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 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 71371–72; Sheran Arden Yeates, D.O., 71 FR 39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick A. Ricci, D.O., 58 FR 51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby Watts, D.O., 53 FR 11919, 11120 (1988); Frederick Marsh Blanton, 43 FR 27617. E:\FR\FM\14AUN1.SGM 14AUN1 66140 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 14, 2024 / Notices (West 2024). 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 [the] state.’’ Id. section 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. AR9231919 issued to Robert Rowen, M.D. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby deny any pending applications of Robert Rowen, M.D., to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of Robert Rowen, M.D., for additional registration in California. This Order is effective September 13, 2024. ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1 Signing Authority This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on August 8, 2024, 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. 2024–18095 Filed 8–13–24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–09–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:22 Aug 13, 2024 Jkt 262001 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Irene Kimura, M.D.; Decision and Order On July 12, 2023, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Irene Kimura, M.D. (Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 3, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed the revocation of Registrant’s Certificate of Registration No. BK4376112 at the registered address of 1017 W Broadway Ave., Moses Lake, WA 98837. Id. at 1. The OSC alleged that Registrant’s registration should be revoked because Registrant is ‘‘currently without authority to prescribe, administer, dispense, or otherwise handle controlled substances in the State of Washington, the state in which [she is] registered with DEA.’’ Id. at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)). The OSC notified Registrant of her right to file with DEA a written request for hearing, and that if she failed to file such a request, she would be deemed to have waived her right to a hearing and be in default. Id. (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). Here, Registrant did not request a hearing. RFAA, at 3.1 ‘‘A default, unless excused, shall be deemed to constitute a waiver of the [registrant’s] right to a hearing and an admission of the factual allegations of the [OSC].’’ 21 CFR 1301.43(e). Further, ‘‘[i]n the event that a registrant . . . is deemed to be in default . . . DEA may then file a request for final agency action with the Administrator, along with a record to support its request. In such circumstances, the Administrator may enter a default final order pursuant to [21 CFR] § 1316.67.’’ Id. § 1301.43(f)(1). Here, the Government has requested final agency action based on Registrant’s default pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(c), (f), 1301.46. RFAA, at 1; see also 21 CFR 1316.67. Findings of Fact The Agency finds that, in light of Registrant’s default, the factual allegations in the OSC are admitted. According to the OSC, on or about November 9, 2021, the State of Washington Department of Health Washington Medical Commission issued an ‘‘Ex Parte Order of Summary Action—Restriction’’ that restricted 1 Based on the Government’s submissions in its RFAA dated October 6, 2023, the Agency finds that service of the OSC on Registrant was adequate. Specifically, the included email chain from a DEA Diversion Investigator to Registrant indicates that Registrant was successfully served with the OSC by email on July 17, 2023. RFAAX 2, at 1–2. PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Registrant from prescribing controlled substances. RFAAX 3, at 2. According to Washington’s online records, of which the Agency takes official notice, Registrant’s Washington medical license is revoked.2 Washington State Department of Health Provider Credential Search, https:// fortress.wa.gov/doh/providercredential search/ (last visited date of signature of this Order). Accordingly, the Agency finds that Registrant is not licensed to practice medicine in Washington, the state in which she is registered with DEA. Discussion Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under 21 U.S.C. 823 ‘‘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, D.O., 76 FR 71371, 71372 (2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 F. App’x 826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh Blanton, D.O., 43 FR 27616, 27617 (1978).3 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 the DEA Office of the Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration at dea.addo.attorneys@dea.gov. 3 This rule derives from the text of two provisions of the Controlled Substances Act (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(g)(1). Because Congress E:\FR\FM\14AUN1.SGM 14AUN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 14, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66139-66140]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-18095]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Robert Rowen, M.D.; Decision and Order

    On May 23, 2023, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or 
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Robert Rowen M.D. 
(Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 
1, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed the revocation of Registrant's 
Certification of Registration No. AR9231919 at the registered address 
of 2200 County Center Dr., Ste. C, Santa Rosa, CA 95403. Id. at 1. The 
OSC alleged that Registrant's registration should be revoked because 
Registrant is ``currently without authority to prescribe, administer, 
dispense, or otherwise handle controlled substances in the State of 
California, the state in which [he is] is registered with DEA.'' Id. at 
2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ According to Agency records, Registrant's registration 
expired on April 30, 2024. 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 (CSA) to adjudicate the OSC to finality. Jeffrey D. 
Olsen, M.D., 84 FR 68474, 68476-79 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The OSC notified Registrant of his right to file with DEA a written 
request for hearing, and that if he failed to file such a request, he 
would be deemed to have waived his right to a hearing and be in 
default. Id. (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). Here, Registrant did not request 
a hearing. RFAA, at 2.\2\ ``A default, unless excused, shall be deemed 
to constitute a waiver of the registrant's/applicant's right to a 
hearing and an admission of the factual allegations of the [OSC].'' 21 
CFR 1301.43(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Based on the Government's submissions in its RFAA dated 
October 16, 2023, the Agency finds that service of the OSC on 
Registrant was adequate. Specifically, the submitted Declaration 
from a DEA Diversion Investigator (DI) indicates that Registrant was 
personally served with the OSC on May 24, 2023. RFAAX 2, at 1. The 
DI also stated in his Declaration that he personally witnessed 
Registrant sign and date a duplicate copy of the OSC to verify 
receipt. Id.; see also id. at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, ``[i]n the event that a registrant . . . is deemed to be 
in default . . . DEA may then file a request for final agency action 
with the Administrator, along with a record to support its request. In 
such circumstances, the Administrator may enter a default final order 
pursuant to [21 CFR] Sec.  1316.67.'' Id. Sec.  1301.43(f)(1). Here, 
the Government has requested final agency action based on Registrant's 
default pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(c), (f), 1301.46. RFAA, at 1; see 
also 21 CFR 1316.67.

Findings of Fact

    The Agency finds that, in light of Registrant's default, the 
factual allegations in the OSC are admitted. According to the OSC, 
effective September 1, 2022, the Medical Board of California suspended 
Registrant's California medical license. RFAAX 1, at 1. According to 
California online records, of which the Agency takes official notice, 
Registrant's California medical license has since been revoked.\3\ 
California DCA License Search, https://search.dca.ca.gov (last visited 
date of signature of this Order). Accordingly, the Agency finds that 
Registrant is not licensed to practice medicine in California, the 
state in which he is registered with DEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 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 the DEA 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 21 U.S.C. 823 ``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, D.O., 76 FR 71371, 71372 (2011), pet. for 
rev. denied, 481 F. App'x 826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh Blanton, 
D.O., 43 FR 27616, 27617 (1978).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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(g)(1). 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 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 71371-72; Sheran 
Arden Yeates, D.O., 71 FR 39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick A. Ricci, 
D.O., 58 FR 51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby Watts, D.O., 53 FR 11919, 
11120 (1988); Frederick Marsh Blanton, 43 FR 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

[[Page 66140]]

(West 2024). 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 [the] state.'' Id. 
section 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. 
AR9231919 issued to Robert Rowen, M.D. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 
0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I 
hereby deny any pending applications of Robert Rowen, M.D., to renew or 
modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of 
Robert Rowen, M.D., for additional registration in California. This 
Order is effective September 13, 2024.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on 
August 8, 2024, 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. 2024-18095 Filed 8-13-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.