Notice2023-00006
Sohail Mamdani, 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
January 6, 2023
Issuing agencies
Justice DepartmentDrug Enforcement Administration
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 4 (Friday, January 6, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 4 (Friday, January 6, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1099-1103]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00006]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Sohail Mamdani, M.D.; Decision and Order
I. Introduction
On July 8, 2021, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Sohail Mamdani, M.D.
(Respondent), of Los Banos, California. Request for Final Agency Action
(RFAA) Exhibit No. (RFAAX) 13, at 1, 8.\1\ The OSC proposes the
revocation of Respondent's DEA Registration No. FM2871564, pursuant to
21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4) and 823(f). Id. at 1. The OSC more specifically
alleges that Respondent wrote ``fraudulent prescriptions for controlled
substances'' for himself using the names of ``multiple fictitious
patients,'' his wife, and his father on his own prescription pad. Id.
at 2. The OSC further alleges that he wrote ``fraudulent prescriptions
for controlled substances'' for himself using his name and the names of
fictitious
[[Page 1100]]
patients on the prescription pads of other doctors.\2\ Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Also referred to as ``Sohail Mamdani, D.O.'' RFAAX 1, at 1.
\2\ The OSC also alleges that Respondent ``filled prescriptions
issued to . . . [him by his] father-in-law, despite knowing'' that
his father-in-law's registration had previously been surrendered.
OSC, at 2; contra RFAA, at 11 (``Given Respondent's status as a
doctor and the highly regulated nature of controlled substance
prescriptions, it is extremely unlikely Respondent was unaware of
his father-in-law's surrendered registration at the time he accepted
and filled those prescriptions.''); see also infra section II.C.,
n.9.
The OSC further alleges that Respondent lacked candor by
assuring DEA investigators, on November 9, 2020, that he was no
longer issuing controlled substance prescriptions to his wife ``as
she had found a primary care physician,'' while continuing to do so.
OSC, at 6-7. Given the seriousness and extent of Respondent's
founded violations, as set out in this Decision, the Agency need
not, and does not, adjudicate the OSC's lack of candor allegations.
The OSC also alleges violations of 21 U.S.C. 843(a)(2) and (3).
OSC, at 3-6; see also RFAAX 6-12. Given the seriousness and extent
of Respondent's violations of other federal legal requirements and
his violations of California statute, the Agency need not, and does
not, consider the OSC's 21 U.S.C. 843(a)(2) and (3) allegations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Respondent submitted a written waiver of hearing with a written
statement and a proposed corrective action plan (PCAP). RFAAX 16 and
RFAAX 14; see also RFAAX 17, at 1-2.\3\ The Government denied
Respondent's request to discontinue or defer administrative proceedings
and stated its determination that ``there is no potential
modification'' of his PCAP ``that could or would alter . . . [the]
decision in this regard.'' RFAAX 15, at 1. Given the seriousness and
extent of Respondent's founded violations, infra sections II.C.,
III.B., and IV., the Agency agrees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Government argues that Respondent's hearing waiver with
written statement was submitted untimely and improperly and,
therefore, is inadmissible and ``should not be considered in
adjudication . . . and issuance of a final order.'' RFAA, at 7. The
Agency finds that on August 13, 2022, within 30 days of service of
the OSC, Respondent sent an email to the Agency containing his
hearing waiver with written statement; Respondent also mailed a copy
of the hearing waiver with written statement which was received by
the Agency on or about August 16, 2022. RFAAX 17, at 1; RFAAX 16, at
1. Because Respondent substantively complied with the OSC's
instructions and because the Government did in fact receive the
hearing waiver and written statement within 30 days, the Agency will
consider Respondent's hearing waiver with written statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having thoroughly analyzed the record and applicable law, the
Agency summarizes its findings and conclusions: (1) the Government
presented a prima facie case that Respondent violated federal and
California law, (2) Respondent attempted, but failed, to rebut the
Government's prima facie case, and (3) substantial record evidence,
including Respondent's own written statement and the sworn declaration
of a DEA Diversion Investigator (DI), shows that the extent of
Respondent's legal violations calls for the revocation of his
registration. Accordingly, the Agency will revoke Respondent's
registration. Infra Order.
II. Findings of Fact
A. The Government's Case
The Agency finds that the RFAA includes the sworn declaration of
the DI and about 400 pages of prescription and prescription-related
exhibits, among other documentary evidence, the content of which is
mostly unrebutted. Infra section II.B. The DI Declaration, among other
things, certifies exhibits submitted with the RFAA and describes a
meeting of Respondent, Respondent's attorney, a DEA Group Supervisor,
and the DI at the office of Respondent's attorney on July 31, 2020.
RFAAX 2, at 1.
Based on the DI Declaration, the Agency finds substantial record
evidence that the July 31, 2020 meeting took place as described in the
DI Declaration and that Respondent, during the meeting, admitted to
misconduct. Id. at 1-2. The Agency finds substantial record evidence
that Respondent admitted that ``he fraudulently prescribed zolpidem
tartrate (a Schedule IV controlled substance) to . . . [nine]
fictitious patients to obtain controlled substances for personal use''
between 2015 and 2020, and that ``he fraudulently prescribed alprazolam
(a Schedule IV controlled substance) to [two] fictitious patients''
between 2015 and 2020. Id. at 2. The Agency further finds substantial
record evidence that Respondent admitted that ``he fraudulently issued
prescriptions for zolpidem tartrate to his wife and . . . would use the
medication for himself'' between 2016 and 2020, and that ``he
fraudulently issued prescriptions for zolpidem tartrate to his father,
but that his father never received the medication and that Respondent
would consume the medication for his personal use'' between 2015 and
2020. Id. The Agency also finds that Respondent admitted that ``he
issued prescriptions for his father and to his wife . . . without
creating or maintaining medical records for any of those prescriptions,
in violation of California law.'' \4\ Id. Additionally, the Agency
finds substantial record evidence, based on the DI Declaration, that
Respondent issued controlled substance prescriptions to himself and to
two of his fictitious patients under the guise of three different
doctors.\5\ Id. at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The DI Declaration also states that during the July 31, 2020
meeting, DEA investigators told Respondent that he ``was violating
the Controlled Substances Act'' each time he issued a fraudulent
prescription to a fictitious patient or to his wife ``in order to
obtain controlled substances for personal use.'' RFAAX 2, at 3.
\5\ The DI Declaration includes substantial record evidence that
each of the three doctors denied issuing these controlled substance
prescriptions.
According to the DI Declaration, Dr. I.A. informed the DI that
she worked with Respondent ``in the fall of 2019 where he shared a
locked cabinet containing [her] prescription pads.'' RFAAX 2, at 3;
infra Section II.B.
The DI Declaration states that pharmacy security footage shows
Respondent picking up two of the allegedly illegal controlled
substance prescriptions. The DI Declaration, however, neither
attaches the security footage nor provides an evidentiary foundation
for the assertion that it shows Respondent picking up the two
prescriptions. Accordingly, this Decision gives no weight to
security footage evidence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Respondent's Case
The Agency finds that the RFAA attaches Respondent's PCAP,
Respondent's correspondence addressing his PCAP, his hearing waiver,
and his written statement, and an email chain that includes an emailed
version of Respondent's correspondence.\6\ RFAAX 14; RFAAX 16; RFAAX
17. The Agency finds substantial record evidence that, in these
documents, among other things, Respondent admits to writing controlled
substance prescriptions ``to more than just [him]self in order to
satisfy . . . [his] habits,'' does not ``attempt to make any . . .
excuse for . . . [his] discreditable habit,'' acknowledges that he
``violate[d] the rules by which a physician should abide to maintain a
DEA license,'' and ``take[s] full responsibility for the wrong . . .
[he] ha[s] done.'' RFAAX 16, at 1; RFAAX 17, at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ According to DEA regulations, a person who is entitled to a
hearing may waive a hearing and submit a written statement regarding
his position on the matters of fact and law involved. 21 CFR
1316.49. The written statement ``shall be considered in light of the
lack of opportunity for cross-examination in determining the weight
to be attached to matters of fact asserted therein.'' Id.
Accordingly, in this matter, when the content of Respondent's
unsworn submission conflicts with the content of a sworn submission,
the Agency gives the sworn submission greater weight than
Respondent's unsworn submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency finds that Respondent also states that he ``cannot
accept responsibility for'' what he calls ``false additional
accusations formally written by the DEA in their case'' against him.
RFAAX 16, at 1; RFAAX 17, at 2. First, Respondent asserts that, ``When
it first came to my attention that I was under investigation by the
DEA, I acknowledged my wrong-doing, and not once from that point
forward did I actually fill another wrongful prescription.'' RFAAX 16,
at 1; RFAAX 17, at 2. Second, Respondent labels an ``utter
fabrication'' that ``should be
[[Page 1101]]
abolished from . . . [DEA's] report'' that he wrote a ``prescription''
for himself under the name of a ``colleague'' with whom he shared a
``locker room'' (Dr. I.A.), and asserts that ``[t]here is not a single
prescription in question regarding this matter, that was wrongfully
obtained under [his] colleague's name.'' \7\ RFAAX 16, at 1; RFAAX 17,
at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The Agency finds that Respondent also states that ``[t]he
mere fact that . . . [my colleague's] name is printed on the same
piece of paper should not translate to my unpermitted possession of
her Rx pad and furthermore filling anything under her name. This
multiple-practitioner sharing of a single Rx pad from a common
location is a widely used practice in the medical field and I was
surprised to see that the DEA was not only unaware of it but
furthermore potentiated my `guilt' by including these accusations
that couldn't be further from the truth.'' RFAAX 16, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the Agency's thorough review of all of the record
evidence, the Agency finds that neither of these claims of Respondent
is credible or creditable. First, the Agency finds substantial record
evidence that Respondent filled a wrongful controlled substance
prescription after he became aware of DEA's investigation. As already
stated, the Agency finds that Respondent and his attorney met with a
DEA investigative team on July 31, 2020. RFAAX 2, at 1. The Agency
finds substantial record evidence that, on August 29, 2020, Respondent
filled a controlled substance (alprazolam 2 mg (#30)) prescription
purportedly issued to him by Dr. Z.A. on August 26, 2020.\8\ RFAAX 6,
at 2-3. The Agency further finds substantial record evidence that, as
of September 24, 2020, Dr. Z.A. did not know Respondent, had not
accepted Respondent as a patient, and had not examined Respondent.
RFAAX 6, at 1; RFAAX 2, at 2. The Agency finds substantial record
evidence that Dr. Z.A. did not write the August 26, 2020 alprazolam 2
mg (#30) prescription for Respondent and that the signature on this
alprazolam prescription is not Dr. Z.A.'s. RFAAX 6, at 1; RFAAX 2, at
2. The Agency finds substantial record evidence that Respondent
wrongfully wrote and, subsequently, filled this controlled substance
prescription. RFAAX 2, at 2; RFAAX 6, at 3. Accordingly, the Agency
does not find credible, and does not credit, Respondent's claim that,
when DEA's investigation of him ``first came'' to his attention, ``not
once from that point forward did . . . [he] actually fill another
wrongful prescription.'' RFAAX 16, at 1; RFAAX 17, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The Agency notes that RFAAX 11, at 1 is a controlled
substance prescription (zolpidem 10 mg (#30)) issued to ``Arif
Hussain,'' one of Respondent's admittedly fictitious patients, by
Respondent on November 5, 2020. RFAAX 11, at 1, in conjunction with
RFAAX 2, at 2. The exhibit, though, does not show a ``fill'' date
and, therefore, does not rebut Respondent's statement that he did
not ``actually fill'' a wrongful controlled prescription after
meeting with the DEA investigative team. RFAAX 16, at 1.
Accordingly, this zolpidem 10 mg (#30) prescription is insufficient
to rebut Respondent's ``actually fill[ed]'' denial.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the Agency finds substantial record evidence that
Respondent wrongfully wrote prescriptions under Dr. I.A.'s name. As
already stated, the Agency finds that Respondent worked with Dr. I.A.
in the fall of 2019, and that the two shared a locked cabinet
containing Dr. I.A.'s prescription pads. RFAAX 2, at 3. The Agency
finds substantial record evidence that Dr. I.A.'s prescription pads
also list Respondent's name and the names of three other doctors. RFAAX
8, at 1, 3, 5, 7. The Agency further finds substantial record evidence
that Dr. I.A.'s name is clearly checked as the issuer at the top of
four controlled substance prescriptions written for ``Farida Mamdani''
and ``Farooq Mamdani,'' two of Respondent's admittedly fictitious
patients, and that the fill labels for these prescriptions state that
Dr. I.A. is the prescriber. RFAAX 8, at 1-8. The Agency also finds
substantial record evidence that Dr. I.A. denied having these two
individuals as patients, issuing controlled substance prescriptions for
them, and signing four controlled substance prescriptions for them.
RFAAX 2, at 2, 3. Accordingly, the Agency concludes, based on
substantial record evidence, that Respondent wrote these controlled
substance prescriptions for his fictitious patients under the name of
Dr. I.A. Therefore, the Agency does not find credible, and does not
credit, Respondent's ``utter fabrication'' claim that ``[t]here is not
a single prescription in question regarding this matter, that was
wrongfully obtained under my colleague's [Dr. I.A.] name.'' RFAAX 16,
at 2; RFAAX 17, at 2.
In sum, based on substantial record evidence, the Agency finds
neither of Respondent's claims credible or creditable.
C. Allegation That Respondent Issued Controlled Substance Prescriptions
Without a Legitimate Medical Purpose and Outside the Usual Course of
Professional Practice
Having thoroughly analyzed all of the record evidence, including
Respondent's submissions and admissions, the Agency finds substantial
record evidence that Respondent wrote controlled substance
prescriptions for himself using the names of multiple fictitious
patients, of his wife, and of his father.\9\ RFAAX 2, at 1-3; RFAAX 3-
5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Respondent using his prescription pad to issue zolpidem
tartrate prescriptions to Respondent's admittedly fictitious
patients between 2015 and 2020: ``Arbazz Ali''--RFAAX 3, at 229-59;
``Arif Ali''--RFAAX 3, at 1-14; ``Ayaan Ali''--RFAAX 3, at 57-58,
65-66, 69-70, 75-76, 83-84, 93-94, 97-98, 103-04, 115-16, 123-24,
131-34; ``Salman Ali''--RFAAX 3, at 191-04; ``Arif Hussain''--RFAAX
3, at 15-28; ``Farida Mamdani''--RFAAX 3, at 139-42, 145-48, 153-54,
159-64; ``Farooq Mamdani''--RFAAX 3, at 167-68, 175-78; ``Sana
Mamdani''--RFAAX 3, at 205-14; ``Ahmad Mameani''--RFAAX 3, at 215-
18, 221-28.
Respondent using his prescription pad to issue alprazolam
prescriptions to Respondent's admittedly fictitious patients between
2015 and 2020: ``Ayaan Ali''--RFAAX 3, at 29-30, 43-46, 49-56, 59-
60, 63-64, 67-68, 71-74, 77-82, 85-92, 95-96, 99-100, 105-14, 117-
22, 125-30, 135-38; ``Farida Mamdani''--RFAAX 3, at 143-44, 149-52,
155-58, 165-66; ``Farooq Mamdani''--RFAAX 3, at 171-74, 185-90.
Respondent using his prescription pad to issue zolpidem
tartrate prescriptions to his wife between 2016 and 2020: RFAAX 4,
at 273-74, 277-80, 285-86, 305-06, 311-12, 315-18, and 323-24.
Respondent using his prescription pad to issue alprazolam
prescriptions to his wife between 2016 and 2020: RFAAX 4, at 269-72,
275-76, 281-84, 287-304, 307-10, 313-14, and 319-22.
Respondent using his prescription pad to issue zolpidem
tartrate prescriptions to his father between 2015 and 2020: RFAAX 5,
at 325-26, 333-34, 339-40, 345-48, 357-58, and 365-76.
Respondent using his prescription pad to issue alprazolam
prescriptions to his father between 2015 and 2020: RFAAX 5, at 327-
28, 331-32, 335-38, 341-44, 349-56, and 359-64.
The Agency finds that some of the record evidence is irrelevant
or illegible, as follows:
RFAAX 3, at 31-40 are too illegible to constitute evidence;
RFAAX 3, at 41-42 is a controlled substance prescription written
by Respondent's father-in-law to ``Ayaan Ali,'' one of Respondent's
fictitious patients. The OSC does not include an allegation to which
these pages apply and, therefore, the Agency finds that these pages
are not relevant to this adjudication;
RFAAX 3, at 47-48 and 61-62 are internally inconsistent about
the prescriber of this controlled substance prescription and,
therefore, these pages do not evidence a violation by Respondent;
RFAAX 3, at 101-02 is a controlled substance prescription
written on Respondent's pad but, according to the face of the
exhibit, the prescription was written by a different doctor.
Accordingly, these pages do not evidence a violation by Respondent;
The contents of RFAAX 3, at 169-70 and 179-80 do not
definitively identify the prescriber. Accordingly, there is
insufficient record evidence that Respondent issued these controlled
substance prescriptions;
RFAAX 3, at 181-82 and 219-20 do not clearly show the
prescriptions' dates. Accordingly, there is insufficient record
evidence that these pages evidence a noticed violation by
Respondent;
RFAAX 3, at 183-84 is a prescription for Augmentin, not a
controlled substance, issued by Respondent. Accordingly, these pages
do not evidence a cognizable violation;
RFAAX 5, at 329-30 does not include clear evidence of the year
of the prescription's issuance. Accordingly, there is insufficient
record evidence that these pages evidence a noticed violation by
Respondent; and
RFAAX 10, at 397-98 and 417-18 are alprazolam and zolpidem
tartrate prescriptions issued to Respondent on the pad of Dr. C.S.
in 2020 and 2019. The Government argues that these pages support the
allegation that Respondent filled controlled substance prescriptions
issued to him by his father-in-law knowing that this father-in-law
previously voluntarily surrendered his registration. This evidence
does not support that allegation because the prescriber is not
Respondent's father-in-law. Accordingly, the Agency finds
insufficient record evidence that these controlled substance
prescriptions constitute a violation by Respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1102]]
III. Discussion
A. The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and Implementing Regulations
Under Section 304 of the CSA, ``[a] registration . . . to . . .
distribute[ ] or dispense a controlled substance . . . may be suspended
or revoked by the Attorney General upon a finding that the registrant .
. . has committed such acts as would render his registration under
section 823 of this title inconsistent with the public interest as
determined by such section.'' 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4). In the case of a
``practitioner,'' such as Respondent, Congress directed the Attorney
General to consider five factors in making the public interest
determination. 21 U.S.C. 823(f)(1-5). The five factors are considered
in the disjunctive. Robert A. Leslie, M.D., 68 FR 15227, 15230 (2003).
According to Agency decisions, the Agency ``may rely on any one or
a combination of factors and may give each factor the weight [it] deems
appropriate in determining whether'' to revoke a registration. Id.; see
also Jones Total Health Care Pharmacy, LLC v. Drug Enf't Admin., 881
F.3d 823, 830 (11th Cir. 2018) (citing Akhtar-Zaidi v. Drug Enf't
Admin., 841 F.3d 707, 711 (6th Cir. 2016); MacKay v. Drug Enf't Admin.,
664 F.3d 808, 816 (10th Cir. 2011); Volkman v. U.S. Drug Enf't Admin.,
567 F.3d 215, 222 (6th Cir. 2009); Hoxie v. Drug Enf't Admin., 419 F.3d
477, 482 (6th Cir. 2005). Moreover, while the Agency is required to
consider each of the factors, it ``need not make explicit findings as
to each one.'' MacKay, 664 F.3d at 816 (quoting Volkman, 567 F.3d at
222); see also Hoxie, 419 F.3d at 482. ``In short, . . . the Agency is
not required to mechanically count up the factors and determine how
many favor the Government and how many favor the registrant. Rather, it
is an inquiry which focuses on protecting the public interest; what
matters is the seriousness of the registrant's misconduct.'' Jayam
Krishna-Iyer, M.D., 74 FR 459462 (2009). Accordingly, as the Tenth
Circuit has recognized, findings under a single factor can support the
revocation of a registration. MacKay, 664 F.3d at 821. In this matter,
while all of the 21 U.S.C. 823(f) factors have been considered, the
Government's evidence is confined to Factor Two, Respondent's
experience in dispensing controlled substances, and Factor Four,
Respondent's compliance with applicable laws related to controlled
substances.\10\ OSC, at 2; RFAA, at 8-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Neither Respondent nor the Government purports to offer
evidence relevant to Factors One, Three, or Five. The Agency
considered Factors One, Three, and Five and finds that none of them
is relevant to this adjudication.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CSA's implementing regulations state that a lawful controlled
substance order or prescription is one that is ``issued for a
legitimate medical purpose by an individual practitioner acting in the
usual course of his professional practice.'' 21 CFR 1306.04(a). As the
OSC is addressed to Respondent at his registered address in California,
the Agency also evaluates Respondent's actions for conformance with
California law.\11\ During the period alleged in the OSC for
Respondent's violations, California law specifically stated that ``[n]o
person shall issue a prescription that is false or fictitious in any
respect.'' Cal. Health & Safety Code Sec. 11157. It also stated that
``[n]o person shall prescribe, administer, or furnish a controlled
substance for himself.'' Cal. Health & Safety Code Sec. 11170.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 269-71 (2006); see
also OSC, at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Factors Two and Four and the Public Interest
As already noted, the record, including the content of Respondent's
submissions, contains substantial evidence that Respondent issued
controlled substance prescriptions to fictitious individuals and to
himself. Supra section II. Section 11157 of the California Health &
Safety Code prohibits the issuance of prescriptions that are ``false or
fictitious in any respect,'' which Respondent admits he did for a
plethora of fictitious individuals. Further, section 11170 of the
California Health & Safety Code prohibits a person from writing
prescriptions for himself, which Respondent also admits he did.
Respondent, therefore, wrote controlled substance prescriptions without
a legitimate medical purpose and outside the usual course of
professional practice, thus violating federal law. 21 CFR 1306.04(a);
Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. at 269-71.
Accordingly, the Agency finds that there is substantial record
evidence of Respondent's violations of applicable law, that the
Government presented a prima facie case, that Respondent failed to
rebut the Government's prima facie case, and that Respondent's
continued registration is inconsistent with the public interest,
supporting the revocation of his registration. 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4).
IV. Sanction
Where, as here, the Government has met its prima facie burden of
showing that Respondent's continued registration is inconsistent with
the public interest due to his issuance of controlled substance
prescriptions without a legitimate medical purpose and outside the
usual course of professional practice, the burden shifts to Respondent
to show why he can be entrusted with a registration. Garrett Howard
Smith, M.D., 83 FR 18882 (2018). Moreover, as past performance is the
best predictor of future performance, the Agency has required that a
registrant who has committed acts inconsistent with the public interest
must unequivocally accept responsibility for those acts and demonstrate
that he will not engage in future misconduct. Id. In addition, a
registrant's candor during the investigation and hearing has been an
important factor in determining acceptance of responsibility and the
appropriate sanction.\12\ Id. In addition, the Agency has found that
the egregiousness and extent of the misconduct are significant factors
in determining the appropriate sanction. Id. The Agency has also
considered the need to deter similar acts by the respondent and by the
community of registrants. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ As already discussed, given the seriousness and extent of
Respondent's founded violations, as set out in this Decision, the
Agency need not, and does not, consider the OSC's lack of candor
allegations. Supra section I, n.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding these matters, Respondent, according to his written
statement, ``take[s] full responsibility for the wrong . . . [he has]
done,'' but ``cannot accept responsibility for some of the false
additional accusations formally written by the DEA in their case
against . . . [him].'' RFAAX 16, at 1; RFAAX 17, at 2. As already
discussed, based on the substantial record evidence establishing the
validity of the accusations Respondent labeled ``false,'' the Agency
finds neither of Respondent's claims credible or creditable. Supra
section II.B. Accordingly, the record is clear that Respondent has not
unequivocally accepted responsibility for the acts inconsistent with
the public interest that he committed.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Regarding Respondent's PCAP and remedial measures, remedial
measures are insufficient without an unequivocal acceptance of
responsibility. Brenton D. Wynn, M.D., 87 FR 24228, 24261 (2022);
see also Michael T. Harris, M.D., 87 FR 30276, 30278 (2022)
(collecting Agency decisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1103]]
In sum, the record supports the imposition of a sanction because
Respondent does not unequivocally accept responsibility for the founded
violations inconsistent with the public interest that he committed and
because Respondent, therefore, has not convinced the Agency that he can
be entrusted with a registration.
The interests of specific and general deterrence weigh in favor of
revocation. See, e.g., Garrett Howard Smith, M.D., 83 FR at 18910
(collecting cases) (``The egregiousness and extent of the misconduct
are significant factors in determining the appropriate sanction.'').
Given the seriousness and extent of Respondent's founded violations, a
sanction less than revocation would send a message to the existing and
prospective registrant community that compliance with the law is not a
condition precedent to maintaining a registration.
Accordingly, the Agency shall order the sanction the Government
requested, as contained in the Order below.
Order
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21
U.S.C. 824(a)(4) and 21 U.S.C. 823(f), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate
of Registration No. FM2871564 issued to Sohail Mamdani, M.D. Further,
pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C.
823(f), I hereby deny any pending application of Sohail Mamdani, M.D.,
to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending
application of Sohail Mamdani, M.D., for registration in California.
This Order is effective February 6, 2023.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on
December 27, 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. 2023-00006 Filed 1-5-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on January 6, 2023.
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.