81 FR 6043 - Louis Watson, M.D.; Decision and Order
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 23 (February 4, 2016)
Drug Enforcement Administration
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 23 (February 4, 2016)
| Page Range | 6043-6044 | |
| FR Document | 2016-02130 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 23 (Thursday, February 4, 2016)] [Notices] [Pages 6043-6044] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-02130] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Louis Watson, M.D.; Decision and Order On July 9, 2015, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an Order to Show Cause to Louis Watson, M.D. (Respondent). The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration FW2729804, and the denial of any pending application to renew or modify the registration, on ground that he ``do[es] not have authority to practice medicine or handle controlled substances in California, the state in which he is registered with the DEA.'' Show Cause Order, at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a)(3)).\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The Show Cause Order also proposed the denial of any other pending application. Show Cause Order, at 1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Show Cause Order alleged that Respondent is registered with the DEA as a practitioner, pursuant to which he is authorized to dispense controlled substances in Schedules II through V, at the registered address of 99 N. San Antonio Ave., #140, Upland, California. Id. The Order also alleged that Respondent's registration does not expire until May 31, 2017. Id. The Show Cause Order further alleged that effective September 12, 2014, the Medical Board of California (MBC) revoked Respondent's California Physician's and Surgeon's Certificate, based on the recommendation of a state Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who had conducted a hearing. Id. The Show Cause Order thus alleged that Respondent is currently ``without authority to handle controlled substances in California, the state in which [he is] registered with the'' Agency, and that ``DEA must revoke [his] registration.'' Id. (citing 21 U.S.C. 802(21), 823(f), 824(a)(3)). The Show Cause Order also notified Respondent 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 of failing to elect either option. Id. at 2 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). The Show Cause Order further explained that ``[m]atters are deemed filed upon receipt by the Hearing Clerk.'' Id. On July 15, 2015, DEA Diversion Investigators (DIs) went to a location in Claremont, California which they believed to be Respondent's residence. GX 3. The DI verified that the location was Respondent's address with a neighbor and a pool maintenance employee. Id. The DI then left the Show Cause Order ``on his front door.'' Id; see also GX 6, at 11-12 (Declaration of DI). Thereafter, Respondent submitted a request for hearing to the DEA Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ). While Respondent's request was dated August 9, 2015, it was not received by the OALJ until August 24, 2015. GX4. In his Hearing Request, Respondent listed the name and address of the attorney who was representing him in a state court challenge to the MBC's order, thus suggesting that the attorney was representing him in this matter. Id. Thereafter, the Chief Administrative Law Judge (CALJ) issued an order directing the Government to file evidence to support its allegation that Respondent lacks state authority to handle controlled substances as well as any motion for summary disposition based on this ground no later than September 8, 2015; the order also directed that if the Government filed such a motion, Respondent was to file his response no later than September 22, 2015. GX 5, at 1-2. In his order, the CALJ also noted that although Respondent's Hearing Request listed the attorney retained to represent his appeal of the decision of the California Medical Board, there was no indication that this attorney was also representing him in the instant proceeding, and thus Respondent's hearing request was construed to be ``a pro se request.'' Id. A copy of the CALJ's order was mailed postage pre-paid to Respondent at 2058 N. Mills Avenue #142, Claremont, California, the address listed on the envelope containing Respondent's Hearing Request. GX 9, at 2; see also GX 5, at 2. Thereafter, the Government filed a motion requesting that the CALJ deny Respondent's request for a hearing on the ground that it was not timely filed pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(a), which requires the filing of a written request for hearing ``within 30 days after the date of receipt of the order to show cause.'' GX 6, at 1 (Motion to Preclude Response to the Order to Show Cause). Therein, the Government argued that Respondent's hearing request was filed 40 days after the date of service of the Order to Show Cause, and that Respondent had not shown good cause for the untimely filing. The Government thus argued that Respondent had waived his right to a hearing and that the CALJ should issue an order denying his hearing request and forwarding the file to the Administrator for a final decision. Id. at 3. On the same date, the Government also filed a Motion for Summary Disposition. Therein, the Government requested that the CALJ ``issue a Recommended Decision to summarily revoke'' Respondent's DEA registration on the ground that he lacks state authority to dispense controlled substances in California, the State in which he hold his registration. GX 7, at 1-2. As support for its motion, the Government submitted copies of the MBC's Decision and the state ALJ's [[Page 6044]] 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 23 / Thursday, February 4, 2016 / Notices 6043
Parties in support of the imposition of Respondent’s DEA Certificate of attorney who was representing him in a
countervailing and antidumping duties Registration FW2729804, and the denial state court challenge to the MBC’s order,
in these investigations and parties in of any pending application to renew or thus suggesting that the attorney was
opposition to the imposition of such modify the registration, on ground that representing him in this matter. Id.
duties will each be collectively he ‘‘do[es] not have authority to practice Thereafter, the Chief Administrative
allocated one hour within which to medicine or handle controlled Law Judge (CALJ) issued an order
make an oral presentation at the substances in California, the state in directing the Government to file
conference. A nonparty who has which he is registered with the DEA.’’ evidence to support its allegation that
testimony that may aid the Show Cause Order, at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. Respondent lacks state authority to
Commission’s deliberations may request 823(f) and 824(a)(3)).1 handle controlled substances as well as
permission to present a short statement The Show Cause Order alleged that any motion for summary disposition
at the conference. Respondent is registered with the DEA based on this ground no later than
Written submissions. As provided in as a practitioner, pursuant to which he September 8, 2015; the order also
sections 201.8 and 207.15 of the is authorized to dispense controlled directed that if the Government filed
Commission’s rules, any person may substances in Schedules II through V, at such a motion, Respondent was to file
submit to the Commission on or before the registered address of 99 N. San his response no later than September 22,
February 24, 2016, a written brief Antonio Ave., #140, Upland, California. 2015. GX 5, at 1–2. In his order, the
containing information and arguments Id. The Order also alleged that CALJ also noted that although
pertinent to the subject matter of the Respondent’s registration does not Respondent’s Hearing Request listed the
investigations. Parties may file written expire until May 31, 2017. Id. attorney retained to represent his appeal
testimony in connection with their The Show Cause Order further alleged of the decision of the California Medical
presentation at the conference. If briefs that effective September 12, 2014, the Board, there was no indication that this
or written testimony contain BPI, they Medical Board of California (MBC) attorney was also representing him in
must conform with the requirements of revoked Respondent’s California the instant proceeding, and thus
sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Physician’s and Surgeon’s Certificate, Respondent’s hearing request was
Commission’s rules. Please consult the based on the recommendation of a state construed to be ‘‘a pro se request.’’ Id.
Commission’s rules, as amended, 76 FR Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who A copy of the CALJ’s order was mailed
61937 (Oct. 6, 2011) and the had conducted a hearing. Id. The Show postage pre-paid to Respondent at 2058
Commission’s Handbook on Filing Cause Order thus alleged that N. Mills Avenue #142, Claremont,
Procedures, 76 FR 62092 (Oct. 6, 2011), Respondent is currently ‘‘without California, the address listed on the
available on the Commission’s Web site authority to handle controlled envelope containing Respondent’s
at http://edis.usitc.gov. substances in California, the state in Hearing Request. GX 9, at 2; see also GX
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) which [he is] registered with the’’ 5, at 2.
and 207.3 of the rules, each document Agency, and that ‘‘DEA must revoke Thereafter, the Government filed a
filed by a party to the investigations [his] registration.’’ Id. (citing 21 U.S.C. motion requesting that the CALJ deny
must be served on all other parties to 802(21), 823(f), 824(a)(3)). Respondent’s request for a hearing on
the investigations (as identified by The Show Cause Order also notified the ground that it was not timely filed
either the public or BPI service list), and Respondent of his right to request a pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(a), which
a certificate of service must be timely hearing on the allegations or to submit requires the filing of a written request
filed. The Secretary will not accept a a written statement in lieu of a hearing, for hearing ‘‘within 30 days after the
document for filing without a certificate the procedure for electing either option, date of receipt of the order to show
of service. and the consequence of failing to elect cause.’’ GX 6, at 1 (Motion to Preclude
Authority: These investigations are being either option. Id. at 2 (citing 21 CFR Response to the Order to Show Cause).
conducted under authority of title VII of the 1301.43). The Show Cause Order further Therein, the Government argued that
Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published explained that ‘‘[m]atters are deemed
pursuant to section 207.12 of the Respondent’s hearing request was filed
filed upon receipt by the Hearing 40 days after the date of service of the
Commission’s rules.
Clerk.’’ Id. Order to Show Cause, and that
By order of the Commission. On July 15, 2015, DEA Diversion Respondent had not shown good cause
Issued: January 29, 2016. Investigators (DIs) went to a location in for the untimely filing. The Government
Lisa R. Barton, Claremont, California which they thus argued that Respondent had
Secretary to the Commission. believed to be Respondent’s residence. waived his right to a hearing and that
[FR Doc. 2016–02066 Filed 2–3–16; 8:45 am] GX 3. The DI verified that the location the CALJ should issue an order denying
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P was Respondent’s address with a his hearing request and forwarding the
neighbor and a pool maintenance file to the Administrator for a final
employee. Id. The DI then left the Show decision. Id. at 3.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Cause Order ‘‘on his front door.’’ Id; see On the same date, the Government
also GX 6, at 11–12 (Declaration of DI). also filed a Motion for Summary
Drug Enforcement Administration Thereafter, Respondent submitted a
Disposition. Therein, the Government
request for hearing to the DEA Office of
requested that the CALJ ‘‘issue a
Louis Watson, M.D.; Decision and Administrative Law Judges (OALJ).
Recommended Decision to summarily
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Order While Respondent’s request was dated
revoke’’ Respondent’s DEA registration
August 9, 2015, it was not received by
On July 9, 2015, the Deputy Assistant on the ground that he lacks state
the OALJ until August 24, 2015. GX4.
Administrator, Office of Diversion authority to dispense controlled
In his Hearing Request, Respondent
Control, Drug Enforcement substances in California, the State in
listed the name and address of the
Administration (DEA), issued an Order which he hold his registration. GX 7, at
to Show Cause to Louis Watson, M.D. 1 The Show Cause Order also proposed the denial 1–2. As support for its motion, the
(Respondent). The Show Cause Order of any other pending application. Show Cause Government submitted copies of the
proposed the revocation of Order, at 1. MBC’s Decision and the state ALJ’s
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:21 Feb 03, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04FEN1.SGM 04FEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_6066/page/1.svg)
![6044 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 23 / Thursday, February 4, 2016 / Notices
Proposed Decision. GX 7, at Government. I make the following longer authorized to dispense controlled
Attachments 2 and 3. findings of fact. substances under the laws of the State
The CALJ then issued a second Order Respondent is a physician authorized in which he practices medicine. See,
directing Respondent to respond to the to handle controlled substances in e.g., Calvin Ramsey, 76 FR 20034, 20036
Government’s Motion to Preclude by schedules II through V at the registered (2011); Sheran Arden Yeates, M.D., 71
September 22, 2015, the same due date address of 99 N. San Antonio Ave., FR 39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick A.
for Respondent’s reply, if any, to the #140, Upland, California. GX 2. His Ricci, 58 FR 51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby
Government’s Motion for Summary registration does not expire until May Watts, 53 FR 11919, 11920 (1988); see
Disposition. GX 8. This order was also 31, 2017. Id. also Hooper v. Holder, 481 Fed. Appx.
sent to Respondent’s address at 2058 N. On August 13, 2014, the MBC issued at 828.
Mills Avenue, #142, Claremont, an order adopting the Proposed Based on the revocation of his
California. Id. at 2. Decision of a state ALJ and ordered the California Physician’s and Surgeon’s
On September 24, the CALJ issued a revocation of Respondent’s Physician’s Certificate, I find that Respondent
Notice of Re-Service. GX 10. Therein, and Surgeon’s License to practice currently lacks authority to dispense
the CALJ explained the all of his prior medicine in the State of California, controlled substances in California, the
orders had been sent to Respondent at effective September 12, 2014. GX 7, at State in which he holds his DEA
the return address listed on the 9. Based on a search of the MBC’s registration. Accordingly, I will order
envelope the latter had used to mail his license verification Web page, that his registration be revoked and that
Hearing Request to the OALJ. The CALJ Respondent’s Physician’s and Surgeon’s any pending applications be denied.
further noted that this address was license remains revoked. See
different from the address the www.breeze.ca.gov (accessed January Order
Government had used to serve 14, 2016). Pursuant to the authority vested in me
Respondent with the Order to Show by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a), as well
Discussion
Cause and its motions. Thus, to ensure as 21 CFR 0.100(b), I order that DEA
Respondent received sufficient notice of Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Certificate of Registration FW2729804,
the response deadlines to the Attorney General is authorized to issued to Louis Watson, M.D., be, and it
Government’s motions, the CALJ re-sent suspend or revoke a registration issued hereby is, revoked. I further order that
his orders to the address of under section 823, ‘‘upon a finding that any pending application of Louis
Respondent’s residence and extended the Registrant . . . has had his State Watson, M.D., to renew or modify his
the time permitted to respond to the license . . . suspended [or] revoked registration, as well as any other
Government’s motions.2 Id. . . . by competent State authority and is pending application be, and it hereby is,
On October 7, 2015, the CALJ, having no longer authorized by State law to denied. This Order is effective March 7,
received no response from Respondent engage in the . . . dispensing of 2016.
to either motion, granted the controlled substances.’’ Moreover, DEA
has held repeatedly that the possession Dated: January 18, 2016.
Government’s motion to terminate the
proceedings, finding that Respondent’s of authority to dispense controlled Chuck Rosenberg,
request for a hearing was not timely substances under the laws of the State Acting Administrator.
filed and that he had neither sought an in which a practitioner engages in [FR Doc. 2016–02130 Filed 2–3–16; 8:45 am]
extension nor offered an explanation for professional practice is a fundamental BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
the untimeliness of his hearing request. condition for obtaining and maintaining
GX 9, at 3. The CALJ also denied the a practitioner’s registration. See, e.g.,
Government’s Motion for Summary James L. Hooper, 76 FR 71371 (2011), DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Disposition as moot. Id at 4. pet. for rev. denied, 481 Fed Appx. 826
Thereafter, the Government submitted (4th Cir. 2012). Drug Enforcement Administration
its Request for Final Agency Action to This rule derives from the text of two [Docket No. DEA–392]
this Office. The Government supported provisions of the CSA. First, Congress
its request with various exhibits, defined ‘‘the term ‘practitioner’ [to] Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled
including the Proposed Decision of the mean[ ] a . . . physician . . . or other Substances Application: Pharmacore,
MBC’s ALJ and the MBC’s Decision. person licensed, registered or otherwise Inc.
Based on the record, I find that permitted, by . . . the jurisdiction in
Respondent’s Hearing Request was which he practices . . . to distribute, ACTION: Notice of application.
untimely and that he has failed to dispense, [or] administer . . . a
controlled substance in the course of DATES: Registered bulk manufacturers of
demonstrate good cause to excuse his
professional practice.’’ 21 U.S.C. the affected basic classes, and
untimeliness. 21 CFR 1301.43(d).
802(21). Second, in setting the applicants therefore, may file written
Accordingly, I find that Respondent has
requirements for obtaining a comments on or objections to the
waived his right to be heard on the
practitioner’s registration, Congress issuance of the proposed registration in
matters of fact and law at issue and
directed that ‘‘[t]he Attorney General accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a) on
issue this Decision and Order based on
shall register practitioners . . . if the or before April 4, 2016.
the record submitted by the
applicant is authorized to dispense . . . ADDRESSES: Written comments should
controlled substances under the laws of be sent to: Drug Enforcement
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
2 In his Order, the CALJ also noted that his staff
had contacted by telephone the attorney listed by the State in which he practices.’’ 21 Administration, Attention: DEA Federal
Respondent in his Hearing Request to determine the
U.S.C. 823(f). Because Congress has Register Representative/ODW, 8701
attorney’s status because he had not submitted any Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia
filings. GX 10, note 2. According to the CALJ, the clearly mandated that a physician
attorney stated that he ‘‘was not currently, and has possess state authority in order to be 22152.
never been, [Respondent’s] counsel in this matter’’; deemed a practitioner under the Act, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
the attorney also stated that upon his receipt of the
Government’s motions he had called Respondent
DEA has held repeatedly that revocation Attorney General has delegated her
and clarified to him that he was not representing of a practitioner’s registration is the authority under the Controlled
him in this matter. Id. appropriate sanction whenever he is no Substances Act to the Administrator of
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:21 Feb 03, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04FEN1.SGM 04FEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_6066/page/2.svg)
Document Created: 2016-02-04 00:31:18
Document Modified: 2016-02-04 00:31:18
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 6043 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR