21174 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Notices 

142—the fact is that he repeatedly 

demonstrated behavior that is 

untrustworthy. I am not convinced that 

the few days of training that he took in 

ethics was so impactful as to have 

reformed him in the manner that he 

suggests. Therefore, I find that the issue 

of specific deterrence weighs in favor of 

revocation. 

Regarding general deterrence,] as the 

regulator in this field, the Agency bears 

the responsibility to deter similar 

misconduct on the part of others for the 

protection of the public at large. Ruben, 

78 FR at 38385. To the extent that no 

sanction is imposed, the unambiguous 

message to the regulated community 

would be that four-and-a-half years of 

enabling the (apparently inappropriate) 

use of powerful controlled drugs for a 

spouse, while employing the artifice of 

alternating scrip names, and only 

stopping when state and federal 

regulatory authorities are tipped off by 

a pharmacist, carries with it no 

consequence. The Respondent’s case in 

this regard might have been somewhat 

fortified if the level of cunning or the 

duration of the malfeasance had been 

more constrained, but the record is what 

it is. 

C. Egregiousness 

Considerations of egregiousness 

likewise support revocation. The 

Respondent carried on prescribing for 

his wife (even during her pregnancy) for 

four-and-a-half years, which is a 

significant amount of time to carry on 

with conduct that a person knows is 

straight-up wrong. The prescribing was 

not a one-off, an act of momentary 

desperation, or a misguided accident 

borne of professional ignorance, and 

there was no eureka moment. Like 

pressing his advantage with the PA 

colleague he mentored, the 

Respondent’s acts were consistently 

intentional. The intentional nature of 

the Respondent’s acts undermines the 

ability of the Agency, at least at present, 

to have confidence that he will 

responsibly exercise the responsibilities 

of a DEA registrant. 

Accordingly, it is respectfully 

recommended that the Respondent’s 

DEA COR should be revoked, and any 

pending applications for renewal should 

be denied. 

Dated: December 8, 2020. 

John J. Mulrooney, II, 

Chief Administrative Law Judge. 

Order 

Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the 

authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 

824(a)(4) and 21 U.S.C. 823(f), I hereby 

revoke DEA Certificate of Registration 

No. MD3130717 issued to Noah David, 

P.A. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 

0.100(b) and the authority vested in me 

by 21 U.S.C. 824(a) and 21 U.S.C. 823(f), 

I hereby deny any pending application 

of Noah David, P.A. to renew or modify 

this registration, as well as any other 

pending application of Noah David, P.A. 

for registration in Virginia. This Order is 

effective May 11, 2022. 

Anne Milgram, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2022–07688 Filed 4–8–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Douglas A. Blose, M.D.; Decision and 

Order 

On September 28, 2021, a former 

Acting Assistant Administrator, 

Diversion Control Division, Drug 

Enforcement Administration 

(hereinafter, Government), issued an 

Order to Show Cause (hereinafter, OSC) 

to Douglas A. Blose, M.D. (hereinafter, 

Registrant) of Downey, California. OSC, 

at 1 and 3. The OSC proposed the 

revocation of Registrant’s Certificate of 

Registration No. AB2619510. Id. at 1. It 

alleged that Registrant ‘‘[does not] have 

authority to dispense or prescribe 

controlled substances in the State of 

California, the state in which [he is] 

registered with the DEA.’’ Id. (citing 21 

U.S.C. 824(a)(3)). 

Specifically, the OSC alleged that on 

or about March 9, 2020, Registrant 

executed a Stipulated Surrender of 

License and Disciplinary Order, 

pursuant to which he surrendered his 

California medical license. Id. at 2. 

According to the OSC, Registrant’s 

surrender was accepted by the Medical 

Board of California on or about March 

30, 2020, and took effect on April 29, 

2020. Id. 

The OSC notified Registrant of the 

right to request a hearing on the 

allegations or to submit a written 

statement, while waiving the right to a 

hearing, the procedures for electing each 

option, and the consequences for failing 

to elect either option. Id. at 2–3 (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)). 

Adequacy of Service 

In a Declaration dated January 3, 

2022, a Diversion Investigator 

(hereinafter, DI) assigned to the Los 

Angeles Field Division stated that on or 

about September 29, 2021, she sent a 

copy of the OSC by certified mail to 

Registrant’s registered address. Request 

for Final Agency Action (hereinafter, 

RFAA), Exhibit (hereinafter, RFAAX) B 

(DI’s Declaration), at 1–3. The DI stated 

that according to USPS tracking 

information, the copy of the OSC was 

delivered on or about October 1, 2021. 

Id. at 2. The DI also stated that on or 

about October 21, 2021, she mailed a 

copy of the OSC to Registrant’s 

residential address as reflected on his 

California driver’s license. Id. The DI 

stated that according to USPS tracking 

information, the second copy of the OSC 

was delivered on or about October 23, 

2021. Id. The DI concluded that neither 

copy of the OSC was returned as 

undeliverable and that she has not 

received any communications from 

Registrant or anyone acting on 

Registrant’s behalf regarding the OSC. 

Id. 

The Government forwarded its RFAA, 

along with the evidentiary record, to 

this office on January 26, 2022. In its 

RFAA, the Government represents that 

more than thirty days have passed since 

Registrant was served with the OSC and 

Registrant has not requested a hearing 

nor otherwise corresponded with DEA 

regarding the OSC. RFAA, at 2. The 

Government requests that Registrant’s 

DEA registration be revoked based on 

his lack of authority to handle 

controlled substances in California, the 

state in which he is registered with the 

DEA. Id. at 6. 

Based on the DI’s Declaration, the 

Government’s written representations, 

and my review of the record, I find that 

the Government accomplished service 

of the OSC on Registrant on or before 

October 23, 2021. I also find that more 

than thirty days have now passed since 

the Government accomplished service 

of the OSC. Further, based on the DI’s 

Declaration, the Government’s written 

representations, and my review of the 

record, I find that neither Registrant, nor 

anyone purporting to represent 

Registrant, has requested a hearing, 

submitted a written statement while 

waiving Registrant’s right to a hearing, 

or submitted a corrective action plan. 

Accordingly, I find that Registrant has 

waived his right to a hearing and his 

right to submit a written statement or 

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 

1301.43(e). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2022 / Notices 21175 

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 of 

finding 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 

dea.addo.attorneys@dea.usdoj.gov. 

Findings of Fact 

Registrant’s DEA Registration 

Registrant is the holder of DEA 

Certificate of Registration No. 

AB2619510 at the registered address of 

11525 Brookshire Avenue, Suite 101, 

Downey, California 90241. RFAAX B, at 

1. Pursuant to this registration, 

Registrant is authorized to dispense 

controlled substances in schedules II 

through V as a practitioner. Id. 

Registrant’s registration expires on July 

31, 2022. Id. 

The Status of Registrant’s State License 

On October 4, 2019, the Medical 

Board of California (hereinafter, the 

Board) issued an Accusation against 

Registrant alleging repeated negligent 

acts and failure to maintain adequate 

and accurate records throughout his 

treatment and care of six specific 

patients. RFAAX B–1, at 9–15. Further, 

according to the Accusation, ‘‘on or 

about September 27, 2019, in a prior 

disciplinary action . . . [Registrant’s] 

license was revoked with revocation 

stayed for five (5) years of probation for 

self-prescribing of controlled substances 

and conviction of crimes substantially 

related to qualifications, functions, or 

duties of a physician and surgeon.’’ Id. 

at 16. On March 9, 2020, Registrant 

entered into a Stipulated Surrender of 

License and Disciplinary Order 

(hereinafter, Stipulated Surrender) in 

which he admitted the truth of the 

allegations in the Accusation and 

surrendered his California medical 

license for the Board’s formal 

acceptance without further process. Id. 

at 4–7. The Stipulated Surrender 

ordered Registrant’s medical license 

surrendered and was signed by 

Registrant and his attorney. Id. at 5–6. 

On March 30, 2020, the Board adopted 

the Stipulated Surrender, effective April 

29, 2020. Id. at 1. 

According to California’s online 

records, of which I take official notice, 

Registrant’s medical license is still 

surrendered.1 Medical Board of 

California License Verification, https://

www.mbc.ca.gov/License-Verification 

(last visited date of signature of this 

Order). Accordingly, I find that 

Registrant is not licensed to engage in 

the practice of medicine in California, 

the state in which he is registered with 

the DEA. 

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 Controlled 

Substances Act (hereinafter, 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 F. App’x 

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, 

‘‘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 § 11010 

(West, current with urgency legislation 

through Ch. 6 of 2022 Reg.Sess.). 

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 this state.’’ Id. at § 11026(c). 

Here, the undisputed evidence in the 

record is that Registrant currently lacks 

authority to practice medicine in 

California. As discussed above, 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. AB2619510 issued to 

Douglas A. Blose, 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 Douglas A. Blose, M.D. to 

renew or modify this registration, as 

well as any other pending application of 

Douglas A. Blose, M.D. for additional 

registration in California. This Order is 

effective May 11, 2022. 

Anne Milgram, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2022–07686 Filed 4–8–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

David H. Betat, M.D.; Decision and 

Order 

On August 21, 2019, a former 

Assistant Administrator of the Diversion 

Control Division of the Drug 

Enforcement Administration 

(hereinafter, Government) issued an 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1