6044 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 23 / Thursday, February 4, 2016 / Notices 

2 In his Order, the CALJ also noted that his staff 

had contacted by telephone the attorney listed by 

Respondent in his Hearing Request to determine the 

attorney’s status because he had not submitted any 

filings. GX 10, note 2. According to the CALJ, the 

attorney stated that he ‘‘was not currently, and has 

never been, [Respondent’s] counsel in this matter’’; 

the attorney also stated that upon his receipt of the 

Government’s motions he had called Respondent 

and clarified to him that he was not representing 

him in this matter. Id. 

Proposed Decision. GX 7, at 

Attachments 2 and 3. 

The CALJ then issued a second Order 

directing Respondent to respond to the 

Government’s Motion to Preclude by 

September 22, 2015, the same due date 

for Respondent’s reply, if any, to the 

Government’s Motion for Summary 

Disposition. GX 8. This order was also 

sent to Respondent’s address at 2058 N. 

Mills Avenue, #142, Claremont, 

California. Id. at 2. 

On September 24, the CALJ issued a 

Notice of Re-Service. GX 10. Therein, 

the CALJ explained the all of his prior 

orders had been sent to Respondent at 

the return address listed on the 

envelope the latter had used to mail his 

Hearing Request to the OALJ. The CALJ 

further noted that this address was 

different from the address the 

Government had used to serve 

Respondent with the Order to Show 

Cause and its motions. Thus, to ensure 

Respondent received sufficient notice of 

the response deadlines to the 

Government’s motions, the CALJ re-sent 

his orders to the address of 

Respondent’s residence and extended 

the time permitted to respond to the 

Government’s motions.2 Id. 

On October 7, 2015, the CALJ, having 

received no response from Respondent 

to either motion, granted the 

Government’s motion to terminate the 

proceedings, finding that Respondent’s 

request for a hearing was not timely 

filed and that he had neither sought an 

extension nor offered an explanation for 

the untimeliness of his hearing request. 

GX 9, at 3. The CALJ also denied the 

Government’s Motion for Summary 

Disposition as moot. Id at 4. 

Thereafter, the Government submitted 

its Request for Final Agency Action to 

this Office. The Government supported 

its request with various exhibits, 

including the Proposed Decision of the 

MBC’s ALJ and the MBC’s Decision. 

Based on the record, I find that 

Respondent’s Hearing Request was 

untimely and that he has failed to 

demonstrate good cause to excuse his 

untimeliness. 21 CFR 1301.43(d). 

Accordingly, I find that Respondent has 

waived his right to be heard on the 

matters of fact and law at issue and 

issue this Decision and Order based on 

the record submitted by the 

Government. I make the following 

findings of fact. 

Respondent is a physician authorized 

to handle controlled substances in 

schedules II through V at the registered 

address of 99 N. San Antonio Ave., 

#140, Upland, California. GX 2. His 

registration does not expire until May 

31, 2017. Id. 

On August 13, 2014, the MBC issued 

an order adopting the Proposed 

Decision of a state ALJ and ordered the 

revocation of Respondent’s Physician’s 

and Surgeon’s License to practice 

medicine in the State of California, 

effective September 12, 2014. GX 7, at 

9. Based on a search of the MBC’s 

license verification Web page, 

Respondent’s Physician’s and Surgeon’s 

license remains revoked. See 

www.breeze.ca.gov (accessed January 

14, 2016). 

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, ‘‘upon a finding that 

the Registrant . . . has had his State 

license . . . suspended [or] revoked 

. . . by competent State authority and is 

no longer authorized by State law to 

engage in the . . . dispensing of 

controlled substances.’’ Moreover, DEA 

has held repeatedly 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, 76 FR 71371 (2011), 

pet. for rev. denied, 481 Fed Appx. 826 

(4th Cir. 2012). 

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 physician 

possess state authority in order to be 

deemed a practitioner under the Act, 

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 medicine. See, 

e.g., Calvin Ramsey, 76 FR 20034, 20036 

(2011); Sheran Arden Yeates, M.D., 71 

FR 39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick A. 

Ricci, 58 FR 51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby 

Watts, 53 FR 11919, 11920 (1988); see 

also Hooper v. Holder, 481 Fed. Appx. 

at 828. 

Based on the revocation of his 

California Physician’s and Surgeon’s 

Certificate, I find that Respondent 

currently lacks authority to dispense 

controlled substances in California, the 

State in which he holds his DEA 

registration. Accordingly, I will order 

that his registration be revoked and that 

any pending applications be denied. 

Order 

Pursuant to the authority vested in me 

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

as 21 CFR 0.100(b), I order that DEA 

Certificate of Registration FW2729804, 

issued to Louis Watson, M.D., be, and it 

hereby is, revoked. I further order that 

any pending application of Louis 

Watson, M.D., to renew or modify his 

registration, as well as any other 

pending application be, and it hereby is, 

denied. This Order is effective March 7, 

2016. 

Dated: January 18, 2016. 

Chuck Rosenberg, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2016–02130 Filed 2–3–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. DEA–392] 

Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled 

Substances Application: Pharmacore, 

Inc. 

ACTION: Notice of application. 

DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of 

the affected basic classes, and 

applicants therefore, may file written 

comments on or objections to the 

issuance of the proposed registration in 

accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a) on 

or before April 4, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 

be sent to: Drug Enforcement 

Administration, Attention: DEA Federal 

Register Representative/ODW, 8701 

Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 

22152. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Attorney General has delegated her 

authority under the Controlled 

Substances Act to the Administrator of 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 23 / Thursday, February 4, 2016 / Notices 6045 

1Notwithstanding that Registrant failed to appear 

at the MBC hearing, the MBC’s findings of fact and 

conclusions of law are entitled preclusive effect in 

this proceeding. The MBC found that Registrant was 

properly served with the Accusation and, in fact, 

several days before the hearing telephoned the 

MBC’s counsel ‘‘and advised her that he was not 

going to appear.’’ GX 3, at 2. Thus, notwithstanding 

that he defaulted, Registrant had a full and fair 

opportunity to challenge the MBC’s allegations. See 

Jose G. Zavaleta, 78 FR 27431, 27434 (2013) 

(collecting cases holding that findings made in a 

proceeding against a party in default are entitled to 

preclusive effect if the party could have appeared 

and defended if he had wanted to); see also id. 

(quoting Gottlieb v. Kest, 141 Cal. App. 4th 110, 149 

(Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (‘‘A default judgment 

conclusively establishes, between the parties so far 

as subsequent proceedings on a different cause of 

action are concerned, the truth of all material 

allegations contained in the complaint in the first 

action, and every fact necessary to uphold the 

default judgment.’’) (int. quotations and citations 

omitted). 

the Drug Enforcement Administration 

(DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to 

exercise all necessary functions with 

respect to the promulgation and 

implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, 

incident to the registration of 

manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, 

importers, and exporters of controlled 

substances (other than final orders in 

connection with suspension, denial, or 

revocation of registration) has been 

redelegated to the Deputy Assistant 

Administrator of the DEA Office of 

Diversion Control (‘‘Deputy Assistant 

Administrator’’) pursuant to section 7 of 

28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R. 

In accordance with 21 CFR 

1301.33(a), this is notice that on 

December 3, 2015, Pharmacore, Inc., 

4180 Mendenhall Oaks Parkway, High 

Point, North Carolina 27265 applied to 

be registered as a bulk manufacturer of 

the following basic classes of controlled 

substances: 

Controlled substance Schedule 

Oxymorphone (9652) ................... II 

Noroxymorphone (9668) .............. II 

The company plans to manufacture 

the listed controlled substances as 

active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) 

for clinical trials. 

Dated: January 27, 2016. 

Louis J. Milione, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2016–02128 Filed 2–3–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

David W. Bailey, M.D.; Decision and 

Order 

On September 9, 2015, the Deputy 

Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement 

Administration (DEA), issued an Order 

to Show Cause to David W. Bailey, M.D. 

(Registrant), of Hesperia, California. The 

Show Cause order proposed the 

revocation of Registrant’s Certificate of 

Registration FB4421474, and the denial 

of any applications to renew or modify 

this registration or for any other 

registration on two grounds. GX 1, at 1. 

First, the Show Cause Order alleged 

on April 3, 2015, the Medical Board of 

California (MBC or Board) revoked his 

state medical license, and that therefore, 

Registrant is ‘‘without authority to 

handle controlled substances in 

California, the [S]tate in which [he is] 

registered with the DEA. Id. (citing 21 

U.S.C. 802(21), 823(f), and 824(a)(3)). 

Second, the Order alleged that 

Registrant’s registration ‘‘is inconsistent 

with the public interest’’ because he 

failed to ‘‘comply with applicable state 

and Federal law[s]’’ related to controlled 

substances. Id. at 2. 

With respect to the latter contention, 

the Show Cause Order alleged that in 

the MBC proceeding, the MBC 

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found 

that Registrant admitted to eighteen 

occasions on which he issued 

clonazepam prescriptions to his wife 

but had the drugs dispensed to himself 

for his ‘‘own abuse.’’ Id. at 2. The Show 

Cause Order also alleged that the MBC’s 

ALJ found that Registrant ‘‘started a 

treatment program for alcohol and 

clonazepam abuse but completed only 

five days of the thirty-day program,’’ 

and that ‘‘[a]n expert physician testified 

that [his] diagnosis included 

benzodiazepine dependence and that 

[he was] not currently undergoing any 

recovery. Id. The Order alleged these 

findings establish that Registrant 

violated 21 U.S.C. 844(a) and 843(a)(3), 

as well as various provisions of the 

California Business and Professions 

Code. Id. The Order thus alleged that 

the MBC ALJ’s findings prove that 

Registrant’s registration ‘‘is inconsistent 

with the public interest under 21 U.S.C. 

824(a)(4) and 823(f)(4).’’ Id. 

Finally, the Show Cause Order 

notified Registrant of his right to request 

a hearing on the allegations or to submit 

a written statement in lieu of a hearing, 

the procedure for electing either option, 

and the consequence for failing to elect 

either option. Id. at 2 (citing 21 CFR 

1301.43). On September 16, 2015, DEA 

Diversion Investigators (DIs) travelled to 

Registrant’s address and after verifying 

his identity, personally served him with 

the Show Cause Order. GX 5, at 2 

(Declaration of DI). 

On December 1, the Government filed 

its Request for Final Agency Action 

along with with various exhibits. In its 

Request, the Government states that 

since the date of service of the Show 

Cause Order, neither Registrant, ‘‘nor 

anyone representing him[,] has 

requested a hearing or sent any other 

correspondence to’’ the Agency. Request 

for Final Agency Action, at 9. 

Based on the Government’s 

submission, I find that 30 days have 

now passed since the date of service of 

the Show Cause Order, and neither 

Registrant, nor anyone purporting to 

represent him, has either requested a 

hearing on the allegations or submitted 

a written statement in lieu of a hearing. 

See 21 CFR 1301.43(a) and (c). 

Accordingly, I find that Registrant has 

waived his right to a hearing or to 

submit a written statement in lieu of 

hearing. Id. § 1301.43(c) and (d). I 

therefore issue this Decision and Final 

Order based on the Investigative Record 

submitted by the Government. Id. 

§ 1301.43(e). I make the following 

findings of fact. 

Findings 

Registrant is a physician authorized to 

dispense controlled substances in 

schedules II through V as a practitioner, 

at the registered address of LaSalle 

Medical Associates, 16455 Main St., 

Suite 1, Hesperia, California. GX 2. His 

registration is not due to expire until 

July 31, 2016. Id. 

On March 6, 2015, the MBC issued an 

order revoking Registrant’s Physician’s 

and Surgeon’s License to practice 

medicine in the State of California, 

effective April 3, 2015. GX 4. The MBC’s 

revocation was based on the decision of 

a state ALJ who found, based on clear 

and convincing evidence, that 

Registrant: (1) Is alcohol and 

benzodiazepine dependent, (2) used 

alcohol and controlled substances in a 

manner dangerous to himself and 

others, (3) prescribed a controlled 

substance to another with the intention 

of using that substance himself, (4) selfadministered a controlled substance that 

he had prescribed in the name of 

another, (5) violated the California 

Medical Practice Act, and 6) engaged in 

unprofessional conduct.1 GX 3, at 1. 

More specifically, the state ALJ found, 

by clear and convincing evidence, that 

Registrant: 

engaged in unprofessional conduct by 

violating state laws related to the 

prescription and use of Klonopin as follows: 

[he] repeatedly issued prescriptions for 

Klonopin in [his wife’s] name with the intent 

of self-administering the Klonopin obtained 

from the prescriptions; he engaged in fraud 

and deceit in order to obtain Klonopin; he 

provided a false name to obtain Klonopin; he 

repeatedly used Klonopin in violation of the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES