```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 249 (Monday, December 30, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 106580-106581]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31324]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

Soroosh Armandi, D.O.; Decision and Order

    On February 1, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or 
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Soroosh Armandi, 
D.O., of San Pedro, California (Registrant). Request for Final Agency 
Action (RFAA), Attachment (RFAAX) A, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed the 
revocation of Registrant's Certificate of Registration No. FA0060359, 
alleging that Registrant's registration should be revoked because 
Registrant is ``currently without authority to handle controlled 
substances in the State of California, the state in which [he is] 
registered with DEA.'' Id. at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ According to Agency records, Registrant's registration 
expired on June 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, 68476-68479 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The OSC notified Registrant of his right to file 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. 
(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] 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 May 
24, 2024, the Agency finds that service of the OSC on Registrant was 
adequate. The included declaration from a DEA Diversion Investigator 
(DI) indicates that she was ``unable to locate Registrant and [she 
was] under the belief that Registrant was out of the country;'' 
accordingly, on February 2, 2024, the DI emailed a copy of the OSC 
to Registrant's registered email address. RFAAX 1, at 2. The DI did 
not state that an undeliverable message was ever received. Id. On 
the same date, the DI mailed a copy of the OSC to Registrant's 
registered address. Id. On February 5, 2024, however, the OSC was 
returned to the DI, along with a notice of a forwarding address for 
Registrant. Id.; see also id., Attachment B. On February 14, 2024, 
the DI mailed a copy of the OSC to Registrant's forwarding address 
and later received confirmation via the certified mailing receipt 
that the OSC was successfully delivered on February 17, 2024. Id. at 
2; see also id., Attachment C. The Agency finds that the DI's 
efforts to serve Registrant were `` `reasonably calculated, under 
all the circumstances, to apprise [Registrant] of the pendency of 
the action.' '' Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220, 226 (2006) (quoting 
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 
(1950)). Therefore, due process notice requirements have been 
satisfied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 California medical license expired on March 31, 2023. 
RFAAX A, at 2. Further, effective June 29, 2023, the Osteopathic 
Medical Board of California revoked Registrant's California medical 
license. Id. According to California online records, of which the 
Agency takes official notice, Registrant's California medical license 
remains revoked.\3\ California DCA License Search, https://search.dca.ca.gov (last visited date of signature of this Order).\4\ 
Accordingly, the Agency finds that Registrant is not licensed to 
practice medicine in California, 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].
    \4\ The OSC lists the number for Registrant's California medical 
license as 20A9741, RFAAX A, at 1; however, the California DCA 
License Search lists Registrant's California medical license number 
as 9741.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. 
Gonzales v.

[[Page 106581]]

Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 270 (2006) (``The Attorney General can register a 
physician to dispense controlled substances `if the applicant is 
authorized to dispense . . . controlled substances under the laws of 
the State in which he practices.' . . . The very definition of a 
`practitioner' eligible to prescribe includes physicians `licensed, 
registered, or otherwise permitted, by the United States or the 
jurisdiction in which he practices' to dispense controlled substances. 
Sec.  802(21).''). The Agency has applied these principles 
consistently. 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).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 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, M.D., 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, M.D., 43 FR at 27617.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to California statute, ``dispense'' means ``to deliver a 
controlled substance to an ultimate user or research subject by or 
pursuant to the lawful order of a practitioner, including the 
prescribing, furnishing, packaging, labeling, or compounding necessary 
to prepare the substance for that delivery.'' Cal. Health & Safety Code 
Sec.  11010 (West 2024). Further, a ``practitioner'' means a person 
``licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, to distribute, 
dispense, conduct research with respect to, or administer, a controlled 
substance in the course of professional practice or research in [the] 
state.'' Id. Sec.  11026(c).
    Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant 
lacks authority to practice medicine in California. As discussed above, 
an individual 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, the Agency 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. 
FA0060359 issued to Soroosh Armandi, D.O. 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 Soroosh Armandi, D.O., to renew 
or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application 
of Soroosh Armandi, D.O., for additional registration in California. 
This Order is effective January 29, 2025.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on 
December 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 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. 2024-31324 Filed 12-27-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
```