Theodore S. Wright Jr., M.D.; Decision and Order, 79308-79309 [2024-22200]

Download as PDF lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 79308 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 188 / Friday, September 27, 2024 / Notices industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337; (2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the plain language description of the accused products or category of accused products, which defines the scope of the investigation, is ‘‘televisions with smart features and functionality’’; (3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served: (a) The complainant is: Maxell, Ltd., 1. Koizumi, Oyamazaki, Oyamazaki-cho, Otokuni-gun, Kyoto, 618–8525 Japan. (b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served: TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a TCL, Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd.), 7th Floor, Building 22E, 22 Science Park East Avenue, Hong Kong Science Park, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd., 22nd Floor, TCL Technical Tower, Huifeng 3 Road, Zhongkai Development, Zone Huizhou, Guangdong, China, 516006 T.C.L. Industries Holdings (H.K.) Limited, 8th Floor, Building 22E, Phase Three, Hong Kong Science Park, Pak Shek Kok, New Territories, Hong Kong TTE Technology, Inc. (d/b/a TCL North America), 1860 Compton Avenue, Corona, CA 92881 TTE Corporation, 7th Floor, Building 22E, 22 Science Park East Avenue, Hong Kong Science Park, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong TCL King Electrical Appliances, (Huizhou) Co. Ltd., No. 78, Huifeng 4 Road, Zhongkai Development Zone Huizhou, China, 516006 Manufacturas Avanzadas S.A. de C.V., Blvd. Independecia No. 2151, Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, 32580, Mexico TCL Smart Device (Vietnam) Co., Ltd., No. 26 VSIP II–A, Street 32, Vietnam Singapore Industrial Park II–A, Tan Binh Commune, Bac Tan Uyen District, Binh Duong Province, 75000, Vietnam Shenzhen TCL New Technology Co., Ltd., 9th Floor, TCL Electronics Holdings Limited Building, TCL International E City, No. 1001 Zhongshan Park Road, Nanshan, China, 518067 TCL Optoelectronics Technology (Huizhou) Co., Ltd., No. 78, Huifeng 4 Road, Zhongkai Development Zone Huizhou, China, 516006 VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Sep 26, 2024 Jkt 262001 TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd., 5th Floor, Building 22E, 22 Science Park East Avenue, Hong Kong Science Park, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong TCL Technology Group Corporation, (f/ k/a TCL Corp.), TCL Technology Building, No. 17, Huifeng Third Road, Zhongkai High-Tech Development Zone, Huizhou, Guangdong, China 516001 (c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and (4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge. Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), as amended in 85 FR 15798 (March 19, 2020), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the complainant of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown. Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent. By order of the Commission. Issued: September 24, 2024. Lisa Barton, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. 2024–22187 Filed 9–26–24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020–02–P PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Theodore S. Wright Jr., M.D.; Decision and Order On August 30, 2023, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Theodore S. Wright Jr., M.D., of Chicago, Illinois (Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 1, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed the revocation of Registrant’s Certificate of Registration No. AW2016651, alleging 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 Illinois, the state in which [he is] registered with DEA.’’ Id. at 1–2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)). 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. at 2 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). Here, Registrant did not request a hearing. RFAA, at 2.1 ‘‘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, effective February 21, 2023, the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation suspended 1 Based on the Government’s submissions in its RFAA dated October 17, 2023, the Agency finds that service of the OSC on Registrant was adequate. Specifically, the included declaration from a DEA Diversion Investigator indicates that on August 31, 2023, Registrant was personally served with the OSC at his registered address. RFAAX 2, at 1; see also id. at 3 (Form DEA–12 signed by Registrant on August 31, 2023). E:\FR\FM\27SEN1.SGM 27SEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 188 / Friday, September 27, 2024 / Notices Registrant’s Illinois medical license. RFAAX 1, at 1. According to Illinois’s online records, of which the Agency takes official notice, Registrant’s Illinois medical license remains suspended.2 Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation License Search, https://online-dfpr.micropact.com/ lookup/licenselookup.aspx/ (last visited date of signature of this Order). Accordingly, the Agency finds that Registrant is not licensed to practice medicine in Illinois, the state in which he is registered with DEA. lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1 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 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 has clearly mandated that a practitioner possess state authority in order to be deemed a practitioner VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:09 Sep 26, 2024 Jkt 262001 Pursuant to the Illinois Controlled Substances Act, a practitioner in good faith (‘‘the regular course of professional treatment’’) may dispense a controlled substance. 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 570/ 312(a), 570/102(u) (2024).4 A ‘‘practitioner’’ means ‘‘a physician licensed to practice medicine in all its branches . . . or other person licensed, registered, or otherwise lawfully permitted by the United States or [Illinois] to distribute, dispense, conduct research with respect to, administer or use in teaching or chemical analysis, a controlled substance in the course of professional practice or research.’’ Id. 570/102(kk). Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant currently lacks authority to practice medicine in Illinois. As discussed above, an individual must be a licensed practitioner to dispense a controlled substance in Illinois. Thus, because Registrant lacks authority to practice medicine in Illinois, and, therefore, is not authorized to handle controlled substances in Illinois, 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. AW2016651 issued to Theodore S. Wright Jr., 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 Theodore S. Wright Jr., M.D., to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of Theodore S. Wright Jr., M.D., for additional registration in Illinois. This Order is effective October 28, 2024. Signing Authority This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on September 19, 2024, by Administrator Anne Milgram. That 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, 11920 (1988); Frederick Marsh Blanton, 43 FR 27617. 4 ‘‘Dispense’’ means ‘‘to deliver a controlled substance to an ultimate user or research subject by or pursuant to the lawful order of a prescriber, including the prescribing, administering, packaging, labeling, or compounding necessary to prepare the substance for that delivery.’’ Id. 570/102(p). PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 79309 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. 2024–22200 Filed 9–26–24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–09–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. 24–46] Wagner Gervais, P.A.; Decision and Order On May 7, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Wagner Gervais, P.A., of Tucson, Arizona (Respondent). OSC, at 1, 4. The OSC proposed the revocation of Respondent’s DEA Certificate of Registration No. MG7845778, alleging that Respondent’s DEA registration should be revoked because Respondent is ‘‘without authority to prescribe, administer, dispense, or otherwise handle controlled substances in the State of Arizona, the state in which [he is] registered with DEA.’’ Id. at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)). On May 21, 2024, Respondent requested a hearing and filed an Answer. On June 4, 2024, the Government filed a Motion for Summary Disposition, to which Respondent did not respond.1 On June 24, 2024, Administrative Law Judge Teresa A. Wallbaum (the ALJ) granted the Government’s Motion for Summary Disposition and recommended the revocation of Respondent’s registration, finding that because Respondent lacks state authority to handle controlled substances in Arizona, the state in which he is registered with DEA, ‘‘[t]here is no genuine issue of material fact in this case.’’ Order Granting the Government’s Motion for Summary Disposition, and Recommended 1 On June 14, 2024, Respondent sought to continue the DEA proceedings while appealing the loss of his state authority; consistent with past precedent, the Administrative Law Judge denied the continuance. E:\FR\FM\27SEN1.SGM 27SEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 188 (Friday, September 27, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79308-79309]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-22200]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Theodore S. Wright Jr., M.D.; Decision and Order

    On August 30, 2023, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or 
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Theodore S. Wright 
Jr., M.D., of Chicago, Illinois (Registrant). Request for Final Agency 
Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 1, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed the 
revocation of Registrant's Certificate of Registration No. AW2016651, 
alleging 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 
Illinois, the state in which [he is] registered with DEA.'' Id. at 1-2 
(citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).
    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. at 2 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). Here, Registrant did not 
request a hearing. RFAA, at 2.\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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Based on the Government's submissions in its RFAA dated 
October 17, 2023, the Agency finds that service of the OSC on 
Registrant was adequate. Specifically, the included declaration from 
a DEA Diversion Investigator indicates that on August 31, 2023, 
Registrant was personally served with the OSC at his registered 
address. RFAAX 2, at 1; see also id. at 3 (Form DEA-12 signed by 
Registrant on August 31, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 February 21, 2023, the Illinois Department of Financial and 
Professional Regulation suspended

[[Page 79309]]

Registrant's Illinois medical license. RFAAX 1, at 1. According to 
Illinois's online records, of which the Agency takes official notice, 
Registrant's Illinois medical license remains suspended.\2\ Illinois 
Department of Financial and Professional Regulation License Search, 
https://online-dfpr.micropact.com/lookup/licenselookup.aspx/ (last 
visited date of signature of this Order). Accordingly, the Agency finds 
that Registrant is not licensed to practice medicine in Illinois, the 
state in which he is registered with 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 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 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, 11920 (1988); Frederick 
Marsh Blanton, 43 FR 27617.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the Illinois Controlled Substances Act, a practitioner 
in good faith (``the regular course of professional treatment'') may 
dispense a controlled substance. 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 570/312(a), 570/
102(u) (2024).\4\ A ``practitioner'' means ``a physician licensed to 
practice medicine in all its branches . . . or other person licensed, 
registered, or otherwise lawfully permitted by the United States or 
[Illinois] to distribute, dispense, conduct research with respect to, 
administer or use in teaching or chemical analysis, a controlled 
substance in the course of professional practice or research.'' Id. 
570/102(kk).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Dispense'' means ``to deliver a controlled substance to an 
ultimate user or research subject by or pursuant to the lawful order 
of a prescriber, including the prescribing, administering, 
packaging, labeling, or compounding necessary to prepare the 
substance for that delivery.'' Id. 570/102(p).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant 
currently lacks authority to practice medicine in Illinois. As 
discussed above, an individual must be a licensed practitioner to 
dispense a controlled substance in Illinois. Thus, because Registrant 
lacks authority to practice medicine in Illinois, and, therefore, is 
not authorized to handle controlled substances in Illinois, 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. 
AW2016651 issued to Theodore S. Wright Jr., 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 Theodore S. Wright Jr., M.D., 
to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending 
application of Theodore S. Wright Jr., M.D., for additional 
registration in Illinois. This Order is effective October 28, 2024.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on 
September 19, 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. 2024-22200 Filed 9-26-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P


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