Notice2022-27479
Allan Alexander Rashford, M.D.; Decision and Order
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
December 19, 2022
Issuing agencies
Justice DepartmentDrug Enforcement Administration
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 242 (Monday, December 19, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 242 (Monday, December 19, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77637-77638]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27479]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 21-35]
Allan Alexander Rashford, M.D.; Decision and Order
On September 23, 2021, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause and Immediate Suspension of
Registration (OSC/ISO) to Allan Alexander Rashford, M.D. (Respondent)
of Charleston, South Carolina.\1\ OSC/ISO, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Respondent holds a DEA Certificate of Registration no.
AR1001306 at the registered address of 903 Saint Andrews Blvd. Suite
B, Charleston, SC 29407-7194. OSC/ISO, at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing was held before DEA Administrative Law Judge Paul E.
Soeffing (the ALJ) who, on April 5, 2022, issued his Recommended
Rulings, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision of the
Administrative Law Judge (RD).\2\ Having reviewed the entire record,
the Agency adopts and hereby incorporates by reference the entirety of
the ALJ's rulings, credibility findings, findings of fact, conclusions
of law, sanctions analysis, and recommended sanction in the RD and
summarizes and expands upon portions thereof herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Neither party filed exceptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Findings of Fact
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(f), 824(a)(4), the Government seeks
revocation of Respondent's DEA registration because Respondent
allegedly committed acts rendering his continued registration
inconsistent with the public interest, including: (1) improperly
prescribing controlled substances; (2) failing to maintain medical
records; and (3) engaging in unlawful electronic prescribing practices.
OSC/ISO, at 1.
Respondent issued the controlled substance prescriptions at issue
in this case to Patients W.G., P.L., T.E., D.P., N.R., and L.C. without
maintaining any medical records. RD, at 28.\3\ According to the
credible, unrebutted, expert testimony of Dr. Gene Kennedy, Respondent
issued all of these controlled substance prescriptions outside the
usual course of professional practice and beneath the applicable
standard of care due to Respondent's lack of medical records. Id. at 28
(citing Tr. 118-31, 344). The record showed that Respondent could not
produce any records for these six patients. RD, at 28 (citing Tr. 249-
50; 323). In addition, Dr. Kennedy credibly testified that the
controlled substance prescriptions for L.P. and P.B. were issued
outside the usual course of professional practice and beneath the
applicable standard of care because Respondent's partial medical
records did not adequately support his prescribing. RD, at 29-31.
Finally, the record established that Respondent permitted his wife and
son
[[Page 77638]]
to access and use his eToken, password, and PIN to electronically
submit prescriptions.\4\ Id. at 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The parties entered into 46 stipulations, all of which are
incorporated into this Decision. RD, at 2-10. On January 29, 2020,
Respondent entered into a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with DEA,
which remains in effect for three years, and which prohibited
Respondent from prescribing Schedule II controlled substances,
required Respondent to maintain proper medical files on all patients
to whom Respondent issued controlled substance prescriptions, and
required Respondent to maintain medical records in a readily
retrievable manner. The Agency agrees with the ALJ's consideration
of the violations of the MOA in the Sanctions section. See RD, at
n.12.
\4\ Respondent testified regarding why he could not maintain and
produce medical records and the purpose of his treatment of the
patients at issue and their circumstances (including that he
attempted to move patients away from controlled substance
prescriptions for pain and stopped prescribing Schedule II
controlled substances after DEA told him to stop in December 2019),
but he does not dispute that he could not produce medical records
documenting his prescribing. RD, at 27, 29, 30; Tr. 79-82; 240-331.
Respondent did not dispute that he had entrusted his electronic
credentials to his son and wife. Id. (citing Tr. 333-37).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Discussion
The Government has the burden of proving that the requirements for
revocation of a DEA registration in 21 U.S.C. 824(a) are satisfied. 21
CFR 1301.44(e). Having reviewed the record and the ALJ's RD, the Agency
agrees with the RD that the Government has proven by substantial
evidence that Respondent committed acts which render his continued
registration inconsistent with the public interest.
The Agency agrees with the RD that the record established multiple
instances where Respondent failed to comply with applicable federal and
state law and dispensed controlled substances in a manner inconsistent
with the public interest. The Agency finds that, based on the credible,
unrebutted testimony of the Government's expert, Dr. Kennedy, the
Government established that Respondent issued all of the prescriptions
at issue in this case outside the usual course of professional practice
and beneath the standard of care in violation of 21 CFR 1306.04(a) and
in violation of several South Carolina laws.\5\ See RD, at 27-30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61-4.1002(a), 61-4.1103, 61-4.1204;
S.C. Code Ann. 40-47-113(A), 44-53-360(h), 44-115-120; see RD, at
27-28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, the Agency agrees with the RD that the record
established that Respondent improperly issued electronic controlled
substance prescriptions by entrusting his secure credentials to his
wife and son and allowing them to access and provide his PIN in the
issuance of those prescriptions. Id. at 32. In so doing, Respondent
violated 21 CFR 1311.125(c), 21 CFR 1311.135(a), and 21 CFR
1311.102(a). See id. at 32-34.
In sum, the Agency agrees with the RD that these factors militate
strongly in favor of the Government's position that Respondent's
continued registration is inconsistent with the public interest and,
thus, that the Government established a prima facie case for
revocation. RD, at 34.
III. Sanction
Where, as here, the Government has established grounds to revoke
Respondent's registration, the burden shifts to the respondent to show
why he can be entrusted with the responsibility carried by a
registration. Garret Howard Smith, M.D., 83 FR 18,882, 18,910 (2018).
When a registrant has committed acts inconsistent with the public
interest, he must both accept responsibility and demonstrate that he
has undertaken corrective measures. Holiday CVS LLC dba CVS Pharmacy
Nos 219 and 5195, 77 FR 62,316, 62,339 (2012).
Here, the Agency adopts the rationale of the RD that, although
Respondent freely admitted that he failed to keep records that were
readily retrievable, he did not unequivocally accept responsibility for
his misconduct; instead, he downplayed his misconduct and placed blamed
on the actions of others. RD, at 34-38 (citing Tr. 246-57, 316-19, 323-
24). In addition, the record demonstrates that Respondent's violations
of the law were not isolated occurrences, but took place over more than
a year, involved multiple patients, and even occurred after the DEA had
specifically notified Respondent of the violations and attempted to
bring Respondent into compliance with an MOA, which Respondent then
violated.
Having reviewed the record in its entirety, the Agency finds that
Respondent cannot be entrusted with a DEA registration and orders that
his registration be revoked.
Order
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in the
Administrator by 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4) and 21 U.S.C. 823(f), I hereby
revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No. AR1001306 issued to Allan
Alexander Rashford, M.D. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b), 21
U.S.C. 824(a), and 21 U.S.C. 823(f), I hereby deny any pending
application of Allan Alexander Rashford, M.D., to renew or modify this
registration, as well as any other pending application of Allan
Alexander Rashford, M.D., for registration in South Carolina. This
Order is effective January 18, 2023.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on
December 12, 2022, by Administrator Anne Milgram. 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.
Heather Achbach,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Drug Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 2022-27479 Filed 12-16-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on December 19, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.