85670 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 29, 2020 / Notices 

During the visit, CS #1 filled out a twopage pain form and CS #1 and UC #1 

signed in on the patient sign-in sheet. 

During the visit, Moyer stood next to the 

patient sign-in sheet and wrote down 

names on a prescription pad from the 

sign-in sheet and she asked some of the 

individuals for their date of birth and 

which drug they were prescribed. Moyer 

entered Kotsonis’s office carrying the 

handwritten prescriptions and exited 

minutes later. The individuals were 

provided prescriptions and many did 

not see Kotsonis. During the visit, 

Moyer called CS #1 and UC #1 into her 

office. UC #1 did not see any medical 

equipment in the office. Moyer asked CS 

#1 to tell the truth about her current 

criminal charges. Moyer said she would 

have to cut CS #1 loose but would give 

CS #1 a prescription. Moyer said DEA 

would say what kind of people CS #1 

was hanging out with and then ‘‘bye bye 

clinic, bye bye license, bye bye Dr. 

Steve’s career’’ because DEA would go 

after the doctor. Moyer said if CS #1’s 

criminal charges were dropped she 

could come back to the clinic. Moyer 

said CS #1’s friend (who referred CS #1 

to the clinic) was dumb because he sold 

pills to an undercover cop. Moyer asked 

CS #1 for her name and date of birth and 

wrote CS #1 a prescription for 90 tablets 

of Oxycodone 30mg, which Moyer took 

to Kotsonis to sign. CS #1 paid Moyer 

$200 cash for the visit. Moyer asked CS 

#1 if she knew what people called 

Moyer. CS #1 said no and Moyer 

responded ‘‘The Oxy Czar.’’ ‘‘They call 

me the gestapo because if you screw up 

the world will stop, so don’t screw up.’’ 

Moyer then continued to fill out 

additional prescriptions. 

CS #1 asked Moyer if UC #1 could be 

accepted as a patient and she said 

everyone who came with CS #1 would 

have to be rescreened (because of CS 

#1’s criminal charges). Moyer then 

looked over the MRIs provided by UC 

#1 and said the second MRI looked a 

little better than the first. Moyer said 

she would show the MRIs to the doctor. 

Moyer opened her desk drawer and 

pulled out a handful of prescriptions, 

papers, and cash, then put everything 

back in the drawer and said ‘‘This is a 

nasty little business we’re in.’’ Moyer 

then said ‘‘I own this clinic now, and I 

don’t have to be nice. I don’t have to let 

just anybody in neither. It’s my clinic, 

me and the doctor’s clinic, I don’t have 

to let anybody in. And I won’t, if I think 

they’re a problem. No way, why would 

I? Are you kidding? This is a big 

business here.’’ She told UC #1 that the 

first office visit was $350 and UC #1 

could come alone next time and asked 

him/her to bring prescription records. 

UC #1 was given a longer version of the 

pain form provided to CS #1 earlier in 

the visit to bring back with her to the 

next visit. Moyer exited her office, 

called out CS #1’s name along with five 

other names and said she would get the 

prescriptions signed. Moyer then 

entered Kotsonis’s office and 

approximately four minutes later she 

exited Kotsonis’s office and handed out 

the prescriptions. CS #1 and UC #1 then 

made their next appointment with the 

receptionist. 

On July 23, 2013, a search warrant 

was executed at Compassionate Care 

Clinic and Kotsonis’ patient files were 

seized along with other evidence. 

Patient files, computers, Moyer’s 

cellphone and pre-signed prescriptions 

(containing the doctor’s signature only), 

filled out prescriptions without 

signature and ripped up prescriptions 

were recovered from Moyer’s office. 

Agents also recovered a letter from 

Costco refusing to fill Dr. Kotsonis’ 

prescriptions and an Express Scripts 

letter regarding excessive medication 

prescribed to a patient as well as 

prefilled out monthly evaluation notes. 

Agents observed minimal medical 

equipment in the clinic. During the 

execution of the search warrant 

Kotsonis agreed to be interviewed and 

was advised he was not under arrest. 

Kotosnis admitted to allowing Moyer to 

prepare prescriptions that he 

subsequently signs and said she brings 

in prescriptions 3–4 patients at a time 

and that he trusts Moyer’s advice on 

what medication should be prescribed 

and generally agrees with her. Kotsonis 

stated most of the time he verifies what 

prescription the patient is receiving. He 

stated that if Moyer does not bring the 

patient file to his office with the 

prescription to verify he trusts what she 

says the patient is receiving. Kotsonis 

estimated 20–25 patients per day are 

follow up patients and Moyer brings 10– 

12 patient charts to Kotsonis a day and 

Kotsonis actually sees and examines 1– 

2 patients per day. Moyer was also 

interviewed and stated the she and 

Kotsonis discuss patients but he 

determines what to prescribe. She stated 

she writes out prescriptions before the 

patients are seen based upon their last 

prescription but does not write down a 

quantity. 

[FR Doc. 2020–28676 Filed 12–28–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

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. 


KHAMMOND on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 29, 2020 / Notices 85671 

1Under 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 

(dea.addo.attorneys@dea.usdoj.gov). 

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 practitionerDW/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). 

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 § 11150 (West 

2020). Further, ‘‘physician,’’ as defined 

by California statute, is a person who is 

‘‘licensed to practice’’ in California. Id. 

at § 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. 

§ 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 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Proposed 

Consent Decree Under the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability 

Act 

On December 18, 2020, the 

Department of Justice lodged a proposed 

Consent Decree with the United States 

District Court for the Southern of Texas 

in the lawsuit entitled United States v. 

Allied Transportation Company, et al., 

Civil Action No. 3:20–cv–382. 

The United States filed a Complaint 

against the defendants pursuant to 

Sections 106 and 107 of the 

Comprehensive Environmental 


KHAMMOND on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES