82 FR 56992 - Kofi E. Shaw-Taylor, M.D. Decision and Order
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 230 (December 1, 2017)
Drug Enforcement Administration
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 230 (December 1, 2017)
| Page Range | 56992-56993 | |
| FR Document | 2017-25922 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 230 (Friday, December 1, 2017)] [Notices] [Pages 56992-56993] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2017-25922] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Kofi E. Shaw-Taylor, M.D. Decision and Order On June 12, 2017, the Assistant Administrator, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration (hereinafter, DEA or Government), issued an Order to Show Cause to Kofi E. Shaw-Taylor, M.D. (hereinafter, Respondent) of Baltimore, Maryland. GX 1. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Respondent's Certificate of Registration on the ground that Respondent does ``not have authority to handle controlled substances in the State of Maryland,'' the State in which he is registered. GX 1, at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and Sec. 824(a)(3)). As to the Agency's jurisdiction, the Show Cause Order alleged that Respondent holds DEA Certificate of Registration No. AS2145476 which authorizes him to dispense controlled substances in schedules II through V as a practitioner at the registered address of 4419 Falls Road, Suite C, Baltimore, Maryland 21211. GX 1, at 1. See also GX 2 (Controlled Substance Registration Certificate) (including ``Westside Medical Group''). The Show Cause Order alleged that this registration expires on February 29, 2020. GX 1, at 1. See also GX 2. As the substantive ground for the proceeding, the Show Cause Order alleged that Respondent is ``without authority to handle controlled substances in Maryland, the state in which . . . [he is] registered with the DEA.'' GX 1, at 1. It further alleged that, on May 9, 2017, Respondent's ``authority to prescribe and administer controlled substances in the State of Maryland was suspended.'' GX 1, at 1. See also GX 3 (Maryland State Board of Physicians Order of Summary Suspension of License to Practice Medicine, hereinafter Order of Summary Suspension). The Show Cause Order alleged that ``DEA must revoke . . . [his] DEA . . . [registration] based upon . . . [his] lack of authority to handle controlled substances in the State of Maryland.'' GX 1, at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 802(21), 823(f)(1), and 824(a)(3)). The Show Cause Order notified Respondent of his right to request a hearing on the allegations or to submit a written statement while waiving his right to a hearing, the procedures for electing each option, and the consequences for failing to elect either option. GX 1, at 2 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). The Show Cause Order also notified Respondent of the opportunity to submit a corrective action plan. GX 1, at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(c)(2)(C)). By letter dated July 17, 2017 addressed to the Office of the [DEA] Administrative Law Judges, Respondent, by his counsel, requested a hearing. GX 5, at 1. The letter admitted that the Maryland State Board of Physicians issued an Order of Summary Suspension of Respondent's license to practice medicine on May 9, 2017. Id. According to the letter, Respondent was challenging that Order ``on grounds of abuse of and lack of due process.'' Id. On July 24, 2017, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, John J. Mulrooney, II, ordered the Government to file proof of service and evidence in support of its allegation that Respondent lacked State authority to practice medicine. GX 6, at 1 (Order Directing the Filing of Proof of Service and Government Evidence of Lack of State Authority Allegation and Briefing Schedule). The Order also established a briefing schedule ``if the Government files a motion based on timeliness of the hearing request and/or a motion for summary disposition based on its allegation that the Respondent lacks state authority to handle controlled substances.'' Id. at 1-2. By submission dated July 28, 2017, Respondent, by his counsel, submitted an ``Order to Show Cause Waiver of Hearing and Statement on the Matter.'' GX 7. According to that submission, Respondent's counsel stated that Respondent was served with the Show Cause Order on June 20, 2017. GX 7, at 1. He also stated that Respondent was waiving a hearing on the Show Cause Order. Id. Further, the submission admitted that the Maryland State Board of Physicians issued an Order of Summary Suspension of Respondent's license to practice medicine, characterizing the Order as being ``based on alleged but unproven charges.'' Id. It expressed ``our fervent belief that the Respondent shall prevail in this matter and his Medical license reinstated.'' Id. It asked that ``the DEA suspend the revocation'' of Respondent's registration ``pending the restoration of the Medical license to save the Respondent the inconvenience, trauma and the lengthy process of reapplication of this same license.'' Id. By Order dated August 2, 2017, the Chief Administrative Law Judge terminated the proceedings based on Respondent's ``Order to Show Cause Waiver of Hearing and Statement on the Matter.'' GX 8, at 1 (Order Terminating Proceedings). On August 2, 2017, the Government submitted a Request for Final Agency Action and an evidentiary record to support the Show Cause Order's allegation. I find that the Government's service of the Show Cause Order on Respondent was legally sufficient. I find that, by letter from his counsel dated July 17, 2017, Respondent requested a hearing. I find that, by submission of his counsel dated July 28, 2017, Respondent sought to file an ``Order to Show Cause Waiver of Hearing and Statement on the Matter.'' Respondent was entitled to waive his right to a hearing and to fail to follow up on his request for a hearing. See 21 CFR 1301.43(d). DEA regulations, however, limit the time for Respondent to exercise his right to submit a written statement of position to ``the period permitted for filing a request for a hearing or a notice of appearance,'' absent a showing of good cause. 21 CFR 1301.43(c). Respondent's ``Statement on the Matter'' was not filed within the period specified in the regulation, and Respondent did not make a showing of good cause to excuse the untimeliness. I decline, therefore, to consider any factual assertions or arguments that Respondent raised in the ``Statement on the Matter.'' \1\ I issue this Decision and Order based on the record submitted by the Government and on Respondent's request for a hearing. 21 CFR 1301.43(e). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Respondent's ``Statement on the Matter'' did not claim that Respondent's medical license had been reinstated. To the contrary, it reiterated Respondent's admission that the Maryland State Board of Physicians issued an Order of Summary Suspension of Respondent's medical license. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Findings of Fact Respondent's DEA Registration Respondent currently holds DEA practitioner registration AS2145476 authorizing him to dispense controlled substances in schedules II through V at the address of Westside Medical Group, 4419 Falls Road, Suite C, Baltimore, Maryland 21211. GX 1, at 1; GX 2. This registration expires on February 29, 2020. Id. [[Page 56993]] The Status of Respondent's State License On May 9, 2017, the Executive Director of the Maryland State Board of Physicians signed a 34-page Order summarily suspending Respondent's license to practice medicine. GX 3. The Order of Summary Suspension discussed numerous complaints against Respondent, including complaints about Respondent's controlled substance prescribing practices, the conclusions of an independent peer review agency that Respondent did not meet quality standards for pain medicine, and allegations concerning Respondent's unprofessional conduct. Id. The Order of Summary Suspension concluded that Respondent acted unprofessionally in his pain medicine practice, among other areas, and determined that the public health, safety, or welfare imperatively required the emergency action of the suspension of Respondent's medical license. Id. at 31-32. The terms of the Order of Summary Suspension included the requirement that Respondent surrender his original Maryland license D26832 and his current license renewal certificate. Id. at 33. On July 11, 2017, the DEA Diversion Investigator assigned to the investigation of Respondent (hereinafter, DI) signed a Declaration. GX 4. In that Declaration, the DI stated that Respondent's license to practice medicine in Maryland was suspended effective May 9, 2017 and that Respondent ``currently has no authority to practice medicine in Maryland.'' Id. at 1. Respondent's hearing request admitted that the Maryland State Board of Physicians summarily suspended Respondent's Maryland medical license. GX 5, at 1. Respondent did not submit any evidence that his Maryland medical license was reinstated. Respondent, thus, admitted that he currently is not authorized to practice medicine in Maryland. Accordingly, I find that Respondent currently is without authority to engage in the practice of medicine in Maryland, the State in which he is registered. 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 71,371 (2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 Fed. Appx. 826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR 27,616, 27,617 (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., Hooper, supra, 76 FR at 71,371-72; Sheran Arden Yeates, M.D., 71 FR 39,130, 39,131 (2006); Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 FR 51,104, 51,105 (1993); Bobby Watts, 53 FR 11,919, 11,920 (1988); Blanton, supra, 43 FR at 27,617. According to Maryland Department of Health regulations, a ``prescription for a controlled dangerous substance may be issued only by an individual practitioner who is . . . [a]uthorized to prescribe controlled dangerous substances in the State of Maryland, in which the practitioner is licensed to practice the practitioner's profession.'' MD Code Regs. 10.19.03.07B(1)(a) (2017). The Maryland Department of Health regulations define an ``individual practitioner'' to be a ``physician . . . or other individual licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted by . . . the jurisdiction in which the individual practitioner practices, to dispense a controlled dangerous substance in the course of professional practice.'' MD Code Regs. 10.19.03.02C(7)(a) (2017). Under Maryland law, a ``physician'' is ``an individual who practices medicine,'' and a ``licensed physician'' is a physician ``who is licensed by the Board [of Physicians] to practice medicine.'' West's MD Code Ann., Health Occupations, Sec. 14-101(m) and (i) (2017). Further, in Maryland, to ``practice medicine'' means ``to engage . . . in medical (i) Diagnosis; (ii) Healing; (iii) Treatment; or (iv) Surgery.'' Id. at Sec. 14-101(o)(1)(i-iv). Thus, in Maryland, a physician may be authorized to dispense controlled substances only if he is licensed to practice medicine. In this case, the Maryland State Board of Physicians suspended Respondent's license to practice medicine. Consequently, Respondent is not currently eligible to handle controlled substances in the State of Maryland, the State in which he is registered with the Agency and, therefore, he is not entitled to maintain his DEA registration. Hooper, supra; Blanton, supra. Accordingly, I will order that Respondent's registration be revoked and that any pending application for the renewal or modification of his registration be denied. 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3). Order Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I order that DEA Certificate of Registration AS2145476 issued to Kofi E. Shaw-Taylor, M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. I further order that any pending application of Kofi E. Shaw- Taylor, M.D., to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application by him for registration in the State of Maryland, be, and it hereby is, denied. This order is effective immediately.\2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ For the same reasons the Maryland State Board of Physicians of the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene suspended Respondent's Maryland Medical License summarily, I find that the public interest necessitates that this Order be effective immediately. 21 CFR 1316.67. Dated: November 20, 2017. Robert W. Patterson, Acting Administrator. [FR Doc. 2017-25922 Filed 11-30-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
![56992 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 230 / Friday, December 1, 2017 / Notices
Authority handle controlled substances in the inconvenience, trauma and the lengthy
We provide this notice under section State of Maryland.’’ GX 1, at 1 (citing 21 process of reapplication of this same
10 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) U.S.C. 802(21), 823(f)(1), and 824(a)(3)). license.’’ Id.
The Show Cause Order notified
and NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1506.6). By Order dated August 2, 2017, the
Respondent of his right to request a
Chief Administrative Law Judge
Scott A. Sobiech, hearing on the allegations or to submit
a written statement while waiving his terminated the proceedings based on
Acting Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and
Wildlife Office, Carlsbad, California. right to a hearing, the procedures for Respondent’s ‘‘Order to Show Cause
electing each option, and the Waiver of Hearing and Statement on the
[FR Doc. 2017–25889 Filed 11–30–17; 8:45 am]
consequences for failing to elect either Matter.’’ GX 8, at 1 (Order Terminating
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
option. GX 1, at 2 (citing 21 CFR Proceedings).
1301.43). The Show Cause Order also On August 2, 2017, the Government
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE notified Respondent of the opportunity submitted a Request for Final Agency
to submit a corrective action plan. GX Action and an evidentiary record to
Drug Enforcement Administration 1, at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(c)(2)(C)). support the Show Cause Order’s
By letter dated July 17, 2017 allegation.
Kofi E. Shaw-Taylor, M.D. Decision and addressed to the Office of the [DEA]
Order Administrative Law Judges, I find that the Government’s service of
Respondent, by his counsel, requested a the Show Cause Order on Respondent
On June 12, 2017, the Assistant hearing. GX 5, at 1. The letter admitted was legally sufficient. I find that, by
Administrator, Diversion Control that the Maryland State Board of letter from his counsel dated July 17,
Division, Drug Enforcement Physicians issued an Order of Summary 2017, Respondent requested a hearing. I
Administration (hereinafter, DEA or Suspension of Respondent’s license to find that, by submission of his counsel
Government), issued an Order to Show practice medicine on May 9, 2017. Id. dated July 28, 2017, Respondent sought
Cause to Kofi E. Shaw-Taylor, M.D. According to the letter, Respondent was to file an ‘‘Order to Show Cause Waiver
(hereinafter, Respondent) of Baltimore, challenging that Order ‘‘on grounds of of Hearing and Statement on the
Maryland. GX 1. The Show Cause Order abuse of and lack of due process.’’ Id. Matter.’’ Respondent was entitled to
proposed the revocation of On July 24, 2017, the Chief waive his right to a hearing and to fail
Respondent’s Certificate of Registration Administrative Law Judge, John J. to follow up on his request for a hearing.
on the ground that Respondent does Mulrooney, II, ordered the Government See 21 CFR 1301.43(d). DEA
‘‘not have authority to handle controlled to file proof of service and evidence in regulations, however, limit the time for
substances in the State of Maryland,’’ support of its allegation that Respondent Respondent to exercise his right to
the State in which he is registered. GX lacked State authority to practice submit a written statement of position to
1, at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and medicine. GX 6, at 1 (Order Directing ‘‘the period permitted for filing a
§ 824(a)(3)). the Filing of Proof of Service and request for a hearing or a notice of
As to the Agency’s jurisdiction, the Government Evidence of Lack of State appearance,’’ absent a showing of good
Show Cause Order alleged that Authority Allegation and Briefing
Respondent holds DEA Certificate of cause. 21 CFR 1301.43(c). Respondent’s
Schedule). The Order also established a ‘‘Statement on the Matter’’ was not filed
Registration No. AS2145476 which briefing schedule ‘‘if the Government
authorizes him to dispense controlled within the period specified in the
files a motion based on timeliness of the
substances in schedules II through V as regulation, and Respondent did not
hearing request and/or a motion for
a practitioner at the registered address make a showing of good cause to excuse
summary disposition based on its
of 4419 Falls Road, Suite C, Baltimore, the untimeliness. I decline, therefore, to
allegation that the Respondent lacks
Maryland 21211. GX 1, at 1. See also GX state authority to handle controlled consider any factual assertions or
2 (Controlled Substance Registration substances.’’ Id. at 1–2. arguments that Respondent raised in the
Certificate) (including ‘‘Westside By submission dated July 28, 2017, ‘‘Statement on the Matter.’’ 1 I issue this
Medical Group’’). The Show Cause Respondent, by his counsel, submitted Decision and Order based on the record
Order alleged that this registration an ‘‘Order to Show Cause Waiver of submitted by the Government and on
expires on February 29, 2020. GX 1, at Hearing and Statement on the Matter.’’ Respondent’s request for a hearing. 21
1. See also GX 2. GX 7. According to that submission, CFR 1301.43(e).
As the substantive ground for the Respondent’s counsel stated that Findings of Fact
proceeding, the Show Cause Order Respondent was served with the Show
alleged that Respondent is ‘‘without Cause Order on June 20, 2017. GX 7, at Respondent’s DEA Registration
authority to handle controlled 1. He also stated that Respondent was
substances in Maryland, the state in waiving a hearing on the Show Cause Respondent currently holds DEA
which . . . [he is] registered with the Order. Id. Further, the submission practitioner registration AS2145476
DEA.’’ GX 1, at 1. It further alleged that, admitted that the Maryland State Board authorizing him to dispense controlled
on May 9, 2017, Respondent’s of Physicians issued an Order of substances in schedules II through V at
‘‘authority to prescribe and administer Summary Suspension of Respondent’s the address of Westside Medical Group,
controlled substances in the State of license to practice medicine, 4419 Falls Road, Suite C, Baltimore,
Maryland was suspended.’’ GX 1, at 1. characterizing the Order as being ‘‘based Maryland 21211. GX 1, at 1; GX 2. This
See also GX 3 (Maryland State Board of on alleged but unproven charges.’’ Id. It registration expires on February 29,
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Physicians Order of Summary expressed ‘‘our fervent belief that the 2020. Id.
Suspension of License to Practice Respondent shall prevail in this matter
Medicine, hereinafter Order of and his Medical license reinstated.’’ Id. 1 Respondent’s ‘‘Statement on the Matter’’ did not
Summary Suspension). The Show Cause It asked that ‘‘the DEA suspend the claim that Respondent’s medical license had been
reinstated. To the contrary, it reiterated
Order alleged that ‘‘DEA must revoke revocation’’ of Respondent’s registration Respondent’s admission that the Maryland State
. . . [his] DEA . . . [registration] based ‘‘pending the restoration of the Medical Board of Physicians issued an Order of Summary
upon . . . [his] lack of authority to license to save the Respondent the Suspension of Respondent’s medical license.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:44 Nov 30, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01DEN1.SGM 01DEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_57222/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 230 / Friday, December 1, 2017 / Notices 56993
The Status of Respondent’s State substances.’’ With respect to a ‘‘an individual who practices
License practitioner, the DEA has also long held medicine,’’ and a ‘‘licensed physician’’
On May 9, 2017, the Executive that the possession of authority to is a physician ‘‘who is licensed by the
Director of the Maryland State Board of dispense controlled substances under Board [of Physicians] to practice
Physicians signed a 34-page Order the laws of the State in which a medicine.’’ West’s MD Code Ann.,
summarily suspending Respondent’s practitioner engages in professional Health Occupations, § 14–101(m) and (i)
license to practice medicine. GX 3. The practice is a fundamental condition for (2017). Further, in Maryland, to
obtaining and maintaining a ‘‘practice medicine’’ means ‘‘to engage
Order of Summary Suspension
practitioner’s registration. See, e.g., . . . in medical (i) Diagnosis; (ii)
discussed numerous complaints against
James L. Hooper, M.D., 76 FR 71,371 Healing; (iii) Treatment; or (iv)
Respondent, including complaints about
(2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 Fed. Surgery.’’ Id. at § 14–101(o)(1)(i-iv).
Respondent’s controlled substance
Appx. 826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick Thus, in Maryland, a physician may be
prescribing practices, the conclusions of
Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR 27,616, authorized to dispense controlled
an independent peer review agency that
27,617 (1978). substances only if he is licensed to
Respondent did not meet quality This rule derives from the text of two practice medicine.
standards for pain medicine, and provisions of the CSA. First, Congress In this case, the Maryland State Board
allegations concerning Respondent’s defined the term ‘‘ ‘practitioner’ [to] of Physicians suspended Respondent’s
unprofessional conduct. Id. The Order mean[ ] a physician . . . or other person license to practice medicine.
of Summary Suspension concluded that licensed, registered, or otherwise Consequently, Respondent is not
Respondent acted unprofessionally in permitted, by . . . the jurisdiction in currently eligible to handle controlled
his pain medicine practice, among other which he practices . . ., to distribute, substances in the State of Maryland, the
areas, and determined that the public dispense, . . . [or] administer . . . a State in which he is registered with the
health, safety, or welfare imperatively controlled substance in the course of Agency and, therefore, he is not entitled
required the emergency action of the professional practice.’’ 21 U.S.C. to maintain his DEA registration.
suspension of Respondent’s medical 802(21). Second, in setting the Hooper, supra; Blanton, supra.
license. Id. at 31–32. The terms of the requirements for obtaining a Accordingly, I will order that
Order of Summary Suspension included practitioner’s registration, Congress Respondent’s registration be revoked
the requirement that Respondent directed that ‘‘[t]he Attorney General and that any pending application for the
surrender his original Maryland license shall register practitioners . . . if the renewal or modification of his
D26832 and his current license renewal applicant is authorized to dispense . . . registration be denied. 21 U.S.C.
certificate. Id. at 33. controlled substances under the laws of 824(a)(3).
On July 11, 2017, the DEA Diversion the State in which he practices.’’ 21
Investigator assigned to the Order
U.S.C. 823(f). Because Congress has
investigation of Respondent clearly mandated that a practitioner Pursuant to the authority vested in me
(hereinafter, DI) signed a Declaration. possess State authority in order to be by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), as well as 28 CFR
GX 4. In that Declaration, the DI stated deemed a practitioner under the CSA, 0.100(b), I order that DEA Certificate of
that Respondent’s license to practice the DEA has held repeatedly that Registration AS2145476 issued to Kofi
medicine in Maryland was suspended revocation of a practitioner’s registration E. Shaw-Taylor, M.D., be, and it hereby
effective May 9, 2017 and that is the appropriate sanction whenever he is, revoked. I further order that any
Respondent ‘‘currently has no authority is no longer authorized to dispense pending application of Kofi E. Shaw-
to practice medicine in Maryland.’’ Id. controlled substances under the laws of Taylor, M.D., to renew or modify this
at 1. the State in which he practices. See, registration, as well as any other
Respondent’s hearing request e.g., Hooper, supra, 76 FR at 71,371–72; pending application by him for
admitted that the Maryland State Board Sheran Arden Yeates, M.D., 71 FR registration in the State of Maryland, be,
of Physicians summarily suspended 39,130, 39,131 (2006); Dominick A. and it hereby is, denied. This order is
Respondent’s Maryland medical license. Ricci, M.D., 58 FR 51,104, 51,105 (1993); effective immediately.2
GX 5, at 1. Respondent did not submit Bobby Watts, 53 FR 11,919, 11,920 Dated: November 20, 2017.
any evidence that his Maryland medical (1988); Blanton, supra, 43 FR at 27,617. Robert W. Patterson,
license was reinstated. Respondent, According to Maryland Department of Acting Administrator.
thus, admitted that he currently is not Health regulations, a ‘‘prescription for a
[FR Doc. 2017–25922 Filed 11–30–17; 8:45 am]
authorized to practice medicine in controlled dangerous substance may be
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
Maryland. issued only by an individual
Accordingly, I find that Respondent practitioner who is . . . [a]uthorized to
currently is without authority to engage prescribe controlled dangerous DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
in the practice of medicine in Maryland, substances in the State of Maryland, in
the State in which he is registered. which the practitioner is licensed to Drug Enforcement Administration
practice the practitioner’s profession.’’
Discussion [Docket No. DEA–392]
MD Code Regs. 10.19.03.07B(1)(a)
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the (2017). The Maryland Department of
Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled
Attorney General is authorized to Health regulations define an ‘‘individual
Substances Application: Nanosyn, Inc.
suspend or revoke a registration issued practitioner’’ to be a ‘‘physician . . . or
under section 823 of the Controlled
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
other individual licensed, registered, or AGENCY:Drug Enforcement
Substances Act (hereinafter, CSA), otherwise permitted by . . . the Administration, Department of Justice.
‘‘upon a finding that the registrant . . . jurisdiction in which the individual
has had his State License or registration practitioner practices, to dispense a 2 For the same reasons the Maryland State Board
suspended [or] revoked by competent controlled dangerous substance in the of Physicians of the Maryland Department of Health
and Mental Hygiene suspended Respondent’s
State authority and is no longer course of professional practice.’’ MD Maryland Medical License summarily, I find that
authorized by State law to engage in the Code Regs. 10.19.03.02C(7)(a) (2017). the public interest necessitates that this Order be
. . . dispensing of controlled Under Maryland law, a ‘‘physician’’ is effective immediately. 21 CFR 1316.67.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:44 Nov 30, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\01DEN1.SGM 01DEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_57222/page/2.svg)
Document Created: 2018-10-25 10:43:54
Document Modified: 2018-10-25 10:43:54
| 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 | 82 FR 56992 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR