[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 29, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 85670-85671]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28678]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Annamalai Ashokan, M.D.; Decision and Order

    On June 1, 2020, the Assistant Administrator, Diversion Control 
Division, Drug Enforcement Administration (hereinafter, Government), 
issued an Order to Show Cause (hereinafter, OSC) to Annamalai Ashokan, 
M.D. (hereinafter, Registrant). OSC, at 1. The OSC proposed the 
revocation of Registrant's Certificate of Registration No. BA0859174. 
Id. It alleged that Registrant is without ``authority to handle 
controlled substances in the State of California, the state in which 
[Registrant is] registered with the DEA.'' Id. at 1-2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 
824(a)(3)).
    Specifically, the OSC alleged that Registrant surrendered his 
medical license pursuant to an agreement he entered into with the 
Medical Board of California on November 12, 2019, and that his license 
remains surrendered. Id. at 1-2. The OSC further alleged that because 
Registrant surrendered his medical license, Registrant lacks the 
authority to handle controlled substances in the State of California. 
Id. at 2.
    The OSC notified Registrant of the right to either request a 
hearing on the allegations or submit a written statement in lieu of 
exercising the right to a hearing, the procedures for electing each 
option, and the consequences for failing to elect either option. Id. 
(citing 21 CFR 1301.43). The OSC also notified Registrant of the 
opportunity to submit a corrective action plan. Id. at 3 (citing 21 
U.S.C. 824(c)(2)(C)).
    On June 4, 2020, a DEA Diversion Investigator placed a copy of the 
OSC addressed to the Registrant in his ``office's outgoing mail pickup 
box for pickup by DEA mailroom staff that day. The letter would have 
been placed in the United States mail by DEA's mailroom staff no later 
than the following day, June 5, 2020.'' Request for Final Agency Action 
(hereinafter, RFAA) Exhibit (hereinafter, RFAAX) 4, at 1 (Declaration 
of Diversion Investigator). Registrant's attorney sent a letter, dated 
July 22, 2020, to the Assistant Administrator, Diversion Control 
Division, stating that Registrant had surrendered his medical license 
and that ``he hereby waives his right to a hearing on this matter.'' 
RFAAX 5 (Letter from Registrant's Attorney), at 1. I find that more 
than thirty days have now passed since the Government accomplished 
service of the OSC.

[[Page 85671]]

Further, based on the Government's written representations, I find that 
neither Registrant, nor anyone purporting to represent Registrant, 
requested a hearing, submitted a written statement while waiving 
Registrant's right to a hearing, or submitted a corrective action plan. 
Further, I find that Registrant, through counsel, explicitly waived his 
right to a hearing. RFAA, at 2; RFAAX 5. Accordingly, I find that 
Registrant has waived the right to a hearing and the right to submit a 
written statement and corrective action plan. 21 CFR 1301.43(d) and 21 
U.S.C. 824(c)(2)(C). I, therefore, issue this Decision and Order based 
on the record submitted by the Government, which constitutes the entire 
record before me. 21 CFR 1301.46.

I. Findings of Fact

a. Registrant's DEA Registration

    Registrant is the holder of DEA Certificate of Registration No. 
BA0859174 at the registered address of 581 McCray Street, Suite E, 
Hollister, CA 95023. RFAAX 1 (Certification of Registration Status). 
Pursuant to this registration, Registrant is authorized to dispense 
controlled substances in schedules II through V as a practitioner-DW/
30. Id. Registrant's registration will expire on June 30, 2021. Id.

b. The Status of Registrant's State License

    On November 12, 2019, Registrant and the Medical Board of 
California entered into a Stipulated Surrender of License and Order, 
whereby Registrant surrendered his California medical license. RFAAX 3. 
The accusations surrounding the surrender included unprofessional 
conduct involving the prescription of controlled substances. Id. at 12-
14. On November 20, 2019, the Medical Board of California entered an 
Order adopting the Stipulated Surrender with an effective date of 
November 27, 2019. Id. at 1. The Medical Board of California's online 
records, of which I take official notice, document that Registrant's 
license is still surrendered.\1\ Medical Board of California License 
Verification, https://www.mbc.ca.gov/Breeze/License_Verification.aspx 
(last visited date of signature of this Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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, Registrant may dispute my finding by filing 
a properly supported motion for reconsideration within fifteen 
calendar days of the date of this Order. Any such motion shall be 
filed with the Office of the Administrator and a copy shall be 
served on the Government. In the event Registrant files a motion, 
the Government shall have fifteen calendar days to file a response. 
Any such motion and response may be filed and served by email 
(<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e4808185ca8580808bca8590908b968a819d97a4808185ca9197808b8eca838b92"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a2c6c7c38cc3c6c6cd8cc3d6d6cdd0ccc7dbd1e2c6c7c38cd7d1c6cdc88cc5cdd4">[email protected]</span></a>).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, I find that Registrant currently is not licensed to 
engage in the practice of medicine in California, the state in which 
Registrant is registered with the DEA.

II. 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 Fed. Appx. 826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick 
Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR 27616, 27617 (1978).
    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, ``[n]o person other than a 
physician . . . shall write or issue a prescription.'' Cal. Health & 
Safety Code Sec.  11150 (West 2020). Further, ``physician,'' as defined 
by California statute, is a person who is ``licensed to practice'' in 
California. Id. at Sec.  11024.
    Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant 
currently lacks authority to practice medicine in California. As 
already discussed, 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, 
I 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. 
BA0859174 issued to Annamalai Ashokan, M.D. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 
0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. Sec.  823(f), I 
hereby deny any pending application of Annamalai Ashokan, M.D. to renew 
or modify this registration or for any other registrations in the State 
of California. This Order is effective January 28, 2021.

Timothy J. Shea,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-28678 Filed 12-28-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>