17528 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 15, 2009 / Notices 

3 Due Process only requires that the Government 

provide a meaningful opportunity to test the 

Government’s proof and respond to the allegations; 

a litigant’s unwillingness to testify in a civil matter, 

because he fears incriminating himself, does not 

render a hearing opportunity unmeaningful in the 

constitutional sense. Ohio Adult Parole Authority v. 

Woodward, 523 U.S. at 272, 286 (1998). Indeed, the 

Supreme Court has even upheld the drawing of an 

adverse inference based on a respondent’s refusal 

to testify in an administrative proceeding. See 

Woodward, 523 U.S. at (1998) (citing Baxter v. 

Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 316–18 (1976)); see also 

INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1043–44 

(1984). 

1Respondent did not, however, dispute that he 

had subsequently been properly served. 

where the State did not rely solely on 

the DEA order in suspending a 

practitioner’s state license). 

Respondent also apparently argues 

that revoking his registration would 

violate his right to Due Process because 

he has invoked his Fifth Amendment 

privilege and is ‘‘unable’’ to address the 

allegations. This argument would be 

unpersuasive even if the Agency was 

still seeking to revoke based on the 

allegations that he unlawfully 

distributed controlled substances.3

Moreover, Respondent ignores that 

under the CSA, the loss of state 

authority provides an independent 

ground to revoke and that the only issue 

now in dispute is whether Respondent 

holds state authority. Respondent was 

provided with a meaningful opportunity 

to refute the Government’s evidence by 

showing that his state license had not 

been (or was no longer) suspended; such 

a showing would not require his 

testimony. That there is no such 

evidence (because the State’s 

suspension order remains in effect) 

likewise does not deprive Respondent of 

Due Process. 

Because Respondent remains without 

authority to dispense controlled 

substances under the laws of the State 

in which he practices medicine and is 

registered with the Agency, his 

registration will be revoked. Moreover, 

for the same reasons that I ordered the 

immediate suspension of Respondent’s 

registration, I further hold that this 

Order be effective immediately. 

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 hereby order 

that DEA Certificate of Registration, 

BB2806480, issued to Joseph 

Baumstarck, M.D., be, and it hereby is, 

revoked. I further order that any 

pending application of Joseph 

Baumstarck, M.D., for renewal or 

modification of his registration be, and 

it hereby is, denied. This order is 

effective immediately. 

Dated: April 3, 2009. 

Michele M. Leonhart, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E9–8612 Filed 4–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

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 § 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

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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 15, 2009 / Notices 17529 

2The 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). 

1On July 10, 2008, the Government served the 

Show Cause Order on Respondent. ALJ Ex. 3. 

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. 

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. § 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 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. 08–52] 

George C. Aycock, M.D.; Revocation of 

Registration 

On June 25, 2008, the Deputy 

Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement 

Administration, issued an Order to 

Show Cause to George C. Aycock, M.D. 

(Respondent), of Sumter, South 

Carolina. The Show Cause Order 

proposed the revocation of 

Respondent’s DEA Certificate of 

Registration, AA1071947, which 

authorizes him to dispense controlled 

substances as a practitioner, and the 

denial of any pending application to 

renew or modify the registration, on the 

grounds that: (1) Respondent’s state 

controlled substance registrations had 

been suspended, and thus he no longer 

has authority to handle controlled 

substances under South Carolina law; 

and (2) Respondent had committed acts 

inconsistent with the public interest. 

ALJ Ex. 1, at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 823(f) 

& 824(a)(4)). 

With respect to the second ground for 

the proceeding, the Show Cause Order 

alleged that Respondent had 

‘‘repeatedly failed to establish a proper 

physician-patient relationship, as 

required by state and federal law, and 

ha[d] authorized controlled substance[] 

prescriptions without a legitimate 

medical purpose and outside the usual 

course of professional practice, in 

violation of 21 CFR 1306.04(a), 21 

U.S.C. 841(a)(1), and S.C. Code Regs. 

81–28.’’ Id. More specifically, the Order 

alleged that Respondent issued 

controlled-substance prescriptions to 

persons he knew were exhibiting drugseeking behavior, abusing controlled 

substances, or selling their drugs to 

others. Id. The Order further alleged that 

Respondent failed to obtain appropriate 

medical histories, perform appropriate 

physical examinations, discuss 

treatments options and create a 

therapeutic plan as required by state 

law.1 Id. at 2. 

Thereafter, the Government sought 

the Immediate Suspension of 

Respondent’s registration based on 

information that on July 3, 2008, the 

State of South Carolina had reinstated 

Respondent’s controlled-substance 

registration, and that on the same day, 

Respondent had issued to a person, who 

had traveled 250 miles to see him, 

prescriptions for sixty tablets of 

Oxycontin (80 mg.), 90 tablets of Lortab 

(10 mg.), and 90 tablets of Xanax (1 

mg.). ALJ Ex. 2, at 1–2. The Order 

further alleged that this person had been 

receiving prescriptions from 

Respondent since July 2007, and that 

medical records which the Government 

had seized during the execution of a 

search warrant indicated that 

Respondent had not ‘‘perform[ed] an 

appropriate physical examination, 

ma[de] appropriate diagnoses or 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS