[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17528-17529]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-8613]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

[Docket No. 08-10]


Scott Sandarg, D.M.D.; Revocation of Registration

    On July 25, 2007, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to 
Show Cause to Scott Sandarg, D.M.D. (Respondent), of Irvine, 
California. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of 
Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration, BS6026525, which 
authorizes him to dispense controlled substances in schedules II 
through V as a practitioner, and the denial of any pending applications 
to renew or modify the registration, on the ground that Respondent had 
committed numerous acts which were inconsistent with the public 
interest. Show Cause Order at 1.
    The Show Cause Order specifically alleged that Respondent had 
unlawfully obtained controlled substances for his own use which 
included illicit methamphetamine, anabolic steroids, drugs containing 
hydrocodone, and several benzodiazepines including alprazolam, through 
various means including by engaging in prescription fraud and by 
obtaining the controlled substances over the internet from 
practitioners with whom he did not establish a valid doctor-patient 
relationship. Id. at 1-3. The Order also alleged that on two separate 
occasions, Respondent had been arrested; that the police found various 
controlled substances in his possession during lawful searches of his 
property; and that Respondent had subsequently pled guilty to various 
offenses under California law including one felony count of unlawful 
possession of a controlled substance in violation of Cal. Health & 
Safety Code Sec.  11377(a), one misdemeanor count of unlawfully being 
under the influence of a controlled substance in violation of Cal. 
Health & Safety Code section 11550(a), and two misdemeanor counts 
related to firearms violations under Cal. Penal Code section 17(b). 
Show Cause Order at 2-3.
    On September 11, 2007, a DEA Diversion Investigator attempted to 
serve the Order to Show Cause on Respondent by faxing it to him. On 
November 9, 2007, Respondent requested a hearing on the allegations of 
the Show Cause Order, and the matter was assigned to an Administrative 
Law Judge (ALJ). Thereafter, the Government moved to terminate the 
proceeding on the ground that Respondent's request was out of time. 
Respondent opposed the motion, submitting the declarations of himself 
and his office manager, both of which asserted that the fax had 
included the cover sheet but not the Show Cause Order. Thereafter, the 
Government submitted a DI's declaration which maintained that 
Respondent's office manager had informed him that she had received the 
entire fax.
    The ALJ denied the Government's motion reasoning that there was a 
factual dispute as to when Respondent had received the Show Cause 
Order. The ALJ then allowed the Government to file an interlocutory 
appeal. On May 12, 2008, I denied the appeal because there was a clear 
factual dispute as to whether Respondent had actually received the Show 
Cause Order on September 11, 2007, and the dispute could not be 
resolved without assessing the credibility of each party's 
witnesses.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Respondent did not, however, dispute that he had 
subsequently been properly served.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thereafter, the Government moved to terminate the proceeding on the 
ground that on December 19, 2007, the California Board of Dental 
Examiners had adopted the proposed decision of a State Administrative 
Law Judge and revoked Respondent's State Dental Certificate with an 
effective date of January 21, 2008. Gov. Mot. for Summary Judgment 2-3. 
The Government argued that because Respondent is not authorized to 
handle controlled substances in the State in which he is registered 
with this Agency, he is not entitled to maintain his registration. Id.
    Respondent's counsel opposed the motion arguing that he had filed 
for a writ of administrative mandamus in State court challenging the 
Board's order. Respondent's Resp. to ALJ's May 21, 2008 Memorandum to 
Counsel at 1. According to Respondent's counsel, the writ raised 
multiple claims of error on the part of the State ALJ, and were the 
court to find any of the claims meritorious, Respondent's license could 
be restored. Id. Respondent's counsel further argued that DEA's 
decision be stayed until the State proceeding was resolved. Id. The 
Government opposed Respondent's motion on the ground that it was 
speculative whether the State court would grant any relief, and that

[[Page 17529]]

this Agency has previously rejected similar arguments.
    On July 10, 2008, the ALJ granted the Government's motion. ALJ at 
6. The ALJ noted that no material facts were in dispute and that 
Respondent did not deny that he is currently not authorized under 
California law to handle controlled substances. Id. Noting that this 
Agency has consistently held that a practitioner may not maintain his 
registration if he lacks authority to handle controlled substances 
under the laws of the State in which he practices, the ALJ granted the 
motion and recommended that Respondent's registration be revoked and 
that any pending applications to renew or modify his registration be 
denied. Id. Thereafter, the ALJ forwarded the record to me for final 
agency action.
    Having considered the entire record in this matter, I adopt the 
ALJ's decision in its entirety. I find that Respondent holds DEA 
Certificate of Registration, BS6026529, which authorizes him to 
dispense controlled substances in schedules II through V at the 
registered location of 17655 Harvard Place, Suite F, Irvine, 
California. I further find that while the expiration date of the 
registration was February 28, 2007, Respondent submitted a timely 
renewal application and therefore his registration has remained in 
effect pending the issuance of this Final Order. See 5 U.S.C. 554(e).
    I further find, however, that on December 19, 2007, the Dental 
Board of California ordered that Respondent's State Dental Certificate 
be revoked with an effective date of January 21, 2008.\2\ Moreover, 
while it has been more than seven months since Respondent's challenge 
to the Dental Board's proceeding was heard in State court, Respondent 
has submitted no evidence to the Agency that the Board's revocation 
order has been set aside or stayed, and according to the Board's Web 
site, Respondent's Dental Certificate remains revoked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The State ALJ's decision concluded that the State had proved 
nine different causes to discipline Respondent, several of which 
related to his abuse of controlled substances. In re Sandarg, 
Proposed Dec. at 44-46, No. DBC 2006-36 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), a practitioner must be 
currently authorized to handle controlled substances in ``the 
jurisdiction in which he practices'' in order to maintain a DEA 
registration. See 21 U.S.C. 802(21) (``[t]he term `practitioner' means 
a physician * * * 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''). See also id. Sec.  823(f) (``The Attorney 
General shall register practitioners * * * if the applicant is 
authorized to dispense * * * controlled substances under the laws of 
the State in which he practices.''). As these provisions make plain, 
possessing authority under State law to handle controlled substances is 
an essential condition for holding a DEA registration.
    Accordingly, DEA has held repeatedly that the CSA requires the 
revocation of a registration issued to a practitioner whose State 
license has been suspended or revoked. David Wang, 72 FR 54297, 54298 
(2007); Sheran Arden Yeates, 71 FR 39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick A. 
Ricci, 58 FR 51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby Watts, 53 FR 11919, 11920 
(1988). See also 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)(authorizing the revocation of a 
registration ``upon a finding that the registrant * * * has had his 
State license or registration suspended [or] revoked * * * and is no 
longer authorized by State law to engage in the * * * distribution [or] 
dispensing of controlled substances'').
    Here, there is no dispute over the material fact that Respondent's 
California Dental Certificate has been revoked and that Respondent 
lacks authority under California law to dispense control substances. 
Respondent is therefore not entitled to maintain his DEA registration.

Order

    Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) & 
824(a), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b) & 0.104, I order that DEA 
Certificate of Registration, BS6026529, issued to Scott Sandarg, 
D.D.S., be, and it hereby is, revoked. I further order that any pending 
application of Scott Sandarg, D.D.S., to renew or modify his 
registration, be, and it hereby is denied. This Order is effective May 
15, 2009.

    Dated: April 3, 2009.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Deputy Administrator.
 [FR Doc. E9-8613 Filed 4-14-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P