Lawrence Rudolph, D.M.D.; Decision and Order, 79310-79312 [2024-22204]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
79310
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 188 / Friday, September 27, 2024 / Notices
Rulings, Findings of Fact, Conclusions
of Law, and Decision of the
Administrative Law Judge (RD), at 4–5.
Respondent did not file exceptions to
the RD.
Having reviewed the entire record, the
Agency adopts and hereby incorporates
by reference the entirety of the ALJ’s
rulings, findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and recommended sanction as
found in the RD and summarizes and
expands upon portions thereof herein.
Findings of Fact
On November 29, 2023, the Arizona
Regulatory Board of Physician
Assistants revoked Respondent’s
Arizona physician assistant license. RD,
at 3.2 According to Arizona online
records, of which the Agency takes
official notice, Respondent’s Arizona
physician assistant license remains
revoked.3 Arizona Regulatory Board of
Physician Assistants, Find Your PA,
https://www.azpa.gov/PASearch/
PASearch (last visited date of signature
of this Order). Accordingly, the Agency
finds that Respondent is not currently
licensed to practice as a physician
assistant in Arizona, the state in which
he is registered with DEA.
Discussion
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
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 (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, DEA has
also long held that the possession of
authority to dispense controlled
substances under the laws of the state in
2 See also Government’s Notice of Filing of
Evidence of Lack of State Authority; Service of
Order to Show Cause; and Motion for Summary
Disposition, Declaration of [Diversion Investigator],
Exhibit A, at 8–9.
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,
Respondent 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:09 Sep 26, 2024
Jkt 262001
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,
71372 (2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481
F. App’x 826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick
Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR 27616,
27617 (1978).4
According to Arizona statute, ‘‘[e]very
person who manufactures, distributes,
dispenses, prescribes or uses for
scientific purposes any controlled
substance within th[e] state or who
proposes to engage in the manufacture,
distribution, prescribing or dispensing
of or using for scientific purposes any
controlled substance within th[e] state
must first: (1) [o]btain and possess a
current license or permit as a medical
practitioner as defined in § 32–1901
. . . .’’ Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. section 36–
2522(A)(1) (2024). Section 32–1901
defines a ‘‘[m]edical practitioner’’ as
‘‘any medical doctor . . . or other
person who is licensed and authorized
by law to use and prescribe drugs and
devices to treat sick and injured human
beings or animals or to diagnose or
prevent sickness in human beings or
animals in [Arizona] or any state,
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, 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 27617. Moreover, because
‘‘the controlling question’’ in a proceeding brought
under 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) is whether the holder of
a practitioner’s registration ‘‘is currently authorized
to handle controlled substances in the [S]tate,’’
Hooper, 76 FR 71371 (quoting Anne Lazar Thorn,
62 FR 12847, 12848 (1997)), the Agency has also
long held that revocation is warranted even where
a practitioner is still challenging the underlying
action. Bourne Pharmacy, 72 FR 18273, 18274
(2007); Wingfield Drugs, 52 FR 27070, 27071 (1987).
Thus, it is of no consequence that Respondent is
still challenging the underlying action here, see
Respondent’s Answer, at 1; Respondent’s Motion to
Continue Show Cause Hearing. Rather, the Agency’s
finding that Respondent is not currently authorized
to dispense controlled substances in Arizona, the
state in which he is registered with DEA, is
controlling. Adley Dasilva, P.A., 87 FR 69341,
69341 n.2 (2022); see also Order Denying
Respondent’s Motion to Continue.
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
territory or district of the United
States.’’ Id. section 32–1901.
Here, the undisputed evidence in the
record is that Respondent lacks
authority to practice as a physician
assistant in Arizona. As discussed
above, only a licensed medical
practitioner can dispense controlled
substances in Arizona. Thus, because
Respondent lacks authority to practice
as a physician assistant in Arizona, and
therefore is not a licensed medical
practitioner, Respondent is not eligible
to maintain a DEA registration.
Accordingly, the Agency will order that
Respondent’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. MG7845778 issued
to Wagner Gervais, P.A. 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 Wagner Gervais, P.A., to
renew or modify this registration, as
well as any other pending application of
Wagner Gervais, P.A., for additional
registration in Arizona. This Order is
effective October 28, 2024.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug
Enforcement Administration was signed
on September 16, 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. 2024–22190 Filed 9–26–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Lawrence Rudolph, D.M.D.; Decision
and Order
On July 12, 2023, the Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show
E:\FR\FM\27SEN1.SGM
27SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 188 / Friday, September 27, 2024 / Notices
Cause (OSC) to Lawrence Rudolph,
D.M.D., of Pittsburgh, PA, Washington,
PA, and Cranberry TWP, PA
(Registrant). Request for Final Agency
Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 3, at 1,
3. The OSC proposed the revocation of
Registrant’s Certificates of Registration
Nos. FR0070538, FR7760728, and
FR7760730, alleging that Registrant’s
registrations should be revoked because
Registrant is ‘‘currently without
authority to prescribe, administer,
dispense, or otherwise handle
controlled substances in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the
state in which [he is] registered with
DEA.’’ Id. at 1–2 (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. at 2 (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.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
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, Registrant’s
Pennsylvania dental license expired on
March 31, 2023. RFAAX 3, at 2.
According to Pennsylvania online
records, of which the Agency takes
1 According to Agency records, Registrant’s
registrations 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 March 20, 2024, the Agency finds that
service of the OSC on Registrant was adequate.
Specifically, the submitted Declaration from a DEA
Diversion Investigator indicates that Registrant was
personally served with the OSC on August 23, 2023.
RFAAX 2, at 2.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:09 Sep 26, 2024
Jkt 262001
official notice, Registrant’s dental
license remains expired.3 Pennsylvania
Licensing System Verification Service,
https://www.pals.pa.gov/#!/page/search
(last visited date of signature of this
Order). Accordingly, the Agency finds
that Registrant is not licensed to
practice dentistry in Pennsylvania, 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 27,616,
27,617 (1978).4
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 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
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
79311
According to Pennsylvania statute,
‘‘dispense’’ means ‘‘to deliver a
controlled substance, other drug or
device to an ultimate user or research
subject by or pursuant to the lawful
order of a practitioner, including the
prescribing, administering, packaging,
labeling, or compounding necessary to
prepare such item for that delivery.’’ 35
Pa. Stat. and Cons. Stat. Ann. § 780–
102(b) (West 2024). Further, a
‘‘practitioner’’ means ‘‘a physician . . .
dentist . . . or other person licensed,
registered or otherwise permitted to
distribute, dispense, conduct research
with respect to or to administer a
controlled substance, other drug or
device in the course of professional
practice or research in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.’’ Id.
Here, the undisputed evidence in the
record is that Registrant lacks authority
to practice dentistry in Pennsylvania. As
discussed above, an individual must be
a licensed practitioner to dispense a
controlled substance in Pennsylvania.
Thus, because Registrant lacks authority
to practice dentistry in Pennsylvania
and, therefore, is not authorized to
handle controlled substances in
Pennsylvania, Registrant is not eligible
to maintain a DEA registration.
Accordingly, the Agency will order that
Registrant’s DEA registrations 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 Certificates
of Registration Nos. FR0070538,
FR7760728, and FR7760730 issued to
Lawrence Rudolph, D.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 Lawrence Rudolph,
D.M.D., to renew or modify this
registration, as well as any other
pending application of Lawrence
Rudolph, D.M.D., for additional
registration in Pennsylvania. This Order
is effective October 28, 2024.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug
Enforcement Administration was signed
on September 20, 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
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.
E:\FR\FM\27SEN1.SGM
27SEN1
79312
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 188 / Friday, September 27, 2024 / Notices
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. 2024–22204 Filed 9–26–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 24–30]
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Adam L. Larson, M.D.; Decision and
Order
On February 23, 2024, the Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show
Cause (OSC) to Adam L. Larson, M.D.,
of Draper, Utah (Respondent). OSC, at 1,
3. The OSC proposed the revocation of
Respondent’s DEA Certificate of
Registration No. FL0432815, alleging
that Respondent is ‘‘without authority to
handle controlled substances in Utah,
the state in which [he is] registered with
DEA.’’ Id. at 1–2 (citing 21 U.S.C.
824(a)(3)).
Respondent requested a hearing and
filed an Answer. On March 15, 2024, the
Government filed a Submission of
Evidence and Motion for Summary
Disposition. On April 9, 2024,
Administrative Law Judge Paul E.
Soeffing (the ALJ) granted the
Government’s Motion for Summary
Disposition and recommended the
revocation of Respondent’s registration,
finding that because Respondent lacks
authority to handle controlled
substances in Utah, the state in which
he is registered with DEA, ‘‘there is no
other fact of consequence for this
tribunal to decide.’’ Order Granting the
Government’s Motion for Summary
Disposition, and Recommended
Rulings, Findings of Fact, Conclusions
of Law, and Decision of the
Administrative Law Judge (RD), at 6.
Respondent did not file exceptions to
the RD.
Having reviewed the entire record, the
Agency adopts and hereby incorporates
by reference the entirety of the ALJ’s
rulings, findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and recommended sanction as
found in the RD and summarizes and
expands upon portions thereof herein.
Findings of Fact
On January 3, 2024, Respondent
surrendered his Utah medical license
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:09 Sep 26, 2024
Jkt 262001
and Utah controlled substance license.
RD, at 3; see also Government’s
Submission of Evidence and Motion for
Summary Disposition, Exhibit (GX) 2, at
7, 11. According to Utah online records,
of which the Agency takes official
notice, Respondent’s Utah medical
license and Utah controlled substance
license both remain surrendered.1 Utah
Division of Professional Licensing,
Licensee Lookup & Verification System,
https://secure.utah.gov/llv/search/
search.html (last visited date of
signature of this Order). Accordingly,
the Agency finds that Respondent is not
licensed to practice medicine nor to
handle controlled substances in Utah,
the state in which he is registered with
DEA.2
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 (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
1 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,
Respondent 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.
2 In his Answer, Respondent contends that the
correct registered address for his DEA Certificate of
Registration No. FL0432815 is in Arizona. Answer
of Respondent [ ] and Evidence of State Authority
(Respondent’s Answer), at 1., However, Agency
records show that the registered address for
Respondent’s DEA Certificate of Registration
FL0432815 is 12340 South 450 East, Draper, Utah
84020.
Respondent also argues that despite lacking
authority to handle controlled substances in Utah,
he has authority to handle controlled substances
elsewhere, referencing a different DEA Certificate of
Registration with a Texas address. Respondent’s
Answer, at 1. Because Respondent’s DEA
registration at issue is based on his Utah licenses,
which have undeniably been surrendered, it is of
no consequence that he may maintain valid
authority and a separate DEA registration
elsewhere. Ralph Reach, M.D., 89 FR 24036, 24037
n.5 (2024); Omar Garcia, M.D., 87 FR 32186, 32187
n.6 (2022).
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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,
71372 (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 Utah statute, ‘‘[e]very
person who manufactures, produces,
distributes, prescribes, dispenses,
administers, conducts research with, or
performs laboratory analysis upon any
controlled substance in Schedules I
through V within [the] state . . . shall
obtain a license issued by the [Division
of Professional Licensing].’’ Utah Code
Ann. section 58–37–6(2)(a)(i) (2024).
Here, the undisputed evidence in the
record is that Respondent lacks
authority to handle controlled
substances in Utah because he
surrendered both his Utah medical
license and his Utah controlled
substance license. As discussed above,
an individual must hold a controlled
substance license to dispense a
controlled substance in Utah. Thus,
because Respondent lacks authority to
handle controlled substances in Utah,
Respondent is not eligible to maintain a
DEA registration in Utah. RD, at 5–6.
Accordingly, the Agency will order that
Respondent’s DEA registration in Utah
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. FL0432815 issued to
Adam L. Larson, 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
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(g)(1). 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 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 27617.
E:\FR\FM\27SEN1.SGM
27SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 188 (Friday, September 27, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79310-79312]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-22204]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Lawrence Rudolph, D.M.D.; Decision and Order
On July 12, 2023, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show
[[Page 79311]]
Cause (OSC) to Lawrence Rudolph, D.M.D., of Pittsburgh, PA, Washington,
PA, and Cranberry TWP, PA (Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action
(RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 3, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed the revocation of
Registrant's Certificates of Registration Nos. FR0070538, FR7760728,
and FR7760730, alleging that Registrant's registrations should be
revoked because Registrant is ``currently without authority to
prescribe, administer, dispense, or otherwise handle controlled
substances in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the state in which [he
is] registered with DEA.'' Id. at 1-2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ According to Agency records, Registrant's registrations
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. at 2 (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
March 20, 2024, the Agency finds that service of the OSC on
Registrant was adequate. Specifically, the submitted Declaration
from a DEA Diversion Investigator indicates that Registrant was
personally served with the OSC on August 23, 2023. RFAAX 2, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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,
Registrant's Pennsylvania dental license expired on March 31, 2023.
RFAAX 3, at 2. According to Pennsylvania online records, of which the
Agency takes official notice, Registrant's dental license remains
expired.\3\ Pennsylvania Licensing System Verification Service, https://www.pals.pa.gov/#!/page/search (last visited date of signature of this
Order). Accordingly, the Agency finds that Registrant is not licensed
to practice dentistry in Pennsylvania, 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 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 27,616, 27,617 (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,
11920 (1988); Frederick Marsh Blanton, 43 FR 27617.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Pennsylvania statute, ``dispense'' means ``to deliver
a controlled substance, other drug or device to an ultimate user or
research subject by or pursuant to the lawful order of a practitioner,
including the prescribing, administering, packaging, labeling, or
compounding necessary to prepare such item for that delivery.'' 35 Pa.
Stat. and Cons. Stat. Ann. Sec. 780-102(b) (West 2024). Further, a
``practitioner'' means ``a physician . . . dentist . . . or other
person licensed, registered or otherwise permitted to distribute,
dispense, conduct research with respect to or to administer a
controlled substance, other drug or device in the course of
professional practice or research in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.'' Id.
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant
lacks authority to practice dentistry in Pennsylvania. As discussed
above, an individual must be a licensed practitioner to dispense a
controlled substance in Pennsylvania. Thus, because Registrant lacks
authority to practice dentistry in Pennsylvania and, therefore, is not
authorized to handle controlled substances in Pennsylvania, Registrant
is not eligible to maintain a DEA registration. Accordingly, the Agency
will order that Registrant's DEA registrations 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 Certificates of Registration Nos.
FR0070538, FR7760728, and FR7760730 issued to Lawrence Rudolph, D.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 Lawrence
Rudolph, D.M.D., to renew or modify this registration, as well as any
other pending application of Lawrence Rudolph, D.M.D., for additional
registration in Pennsylvania. This Order is effective October 28, 2024.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on
September 20, 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
[[Page 79312]]
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. 2024-22204 Filed 9-26-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
