On February 19, 2025, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Thomas Draschil, M.D., of Salt Lake City, Utah (Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 2, at 1, 4. The OSC proposed the revocation of Registrant's DEA Certificate of Registration No. FD9980118, alleging that Registrant is “currently without authority to . . . handle controlled substances in the State of Utah, the state in which [he is] registered with DEA.” Id. at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).

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. at 2-3 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). Here, Registrant did not request a hearing. RFAA, at 2-3.^[1] “A default, unless excused, shall be deemed to constitute a waiver of the registrant's/applicant's right to a hearing and an admission of the factual allegations of the [OSC].” 21 CFR 1301.43(e).

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] 1316.67.” Id. at 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), and 1301.46. RFAA, at 1, 4; see also21 CFR 1316.67.

Findings of Fact

The Agency finds that, in light of Registrant's default, the factual allegations in the OSC are deemed admitted. According to the OSC, Registrant's Utah physician license and Utah controlled substance license were voluntarily surrendered on July 29, 2024. RFAAX 2, at 1-2; see also RFAAX 3, at 1-8. According to Utah online records, of which the Agency takes official notice,^[2] Registrant's Utah licenses continue to have a status of “Surrendered.” Utah DOPL License Search, https://secure.utah.gov/​llv/​search/​index.html (last visited date of signature of this Order). Accordingly, the Agency finds that Registrant is not licensed as a practitioner in Utah, the ( printed page 34520) state in which he is registered with DEA.^[3]

Discussion

Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General may 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. 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. § 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).^[4]

According to Utah statute, “practitioner” means a “physician . . . or other 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.” Utah Code Ann. § 58-37-2(1)(jj) (West 2025). Additionally, “[e]very person who . . . distributes, prescribes, dispenses, [or] administers . . . any controlled substance in Schedules I through V within [the] state . . . shall obtain a license issued by the [Division of Professional Licensing].” Id. at 58-37-6(2)(a)(i).

Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that both Registrant's Utah physician license and Registrant's Utah controlled substance license have been surrendered. As such, Registrant is not authorized to handle controlled substances in Utah and thus is not eligible to maintain a DEA registration in Utah. Accordingly, the Agency will order that Registrant's DEA registration in Utah 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. FD9980118 issued to Thomas Draschil, M.D. 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 Thomas Draschil, M.D., to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of Thomas Draschil, M.D., for additional registration in Utah. This Order is effective August 21, 2025.

Signing Authority

This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on July 16, 2025, by Acting Administrator Robert J. Murphy. 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 .