Notice2024-14207
Abdul Naushad, 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
June 28, 2024
Issuing agencies
Justice DepartmentDrug Enforcement Administration
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 125 (Friday, June 28, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 125 (Friday, June 28, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54059-54061]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-14207]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 24-18]
Abdul Naushad, M.D.; Decision and Order
I. Introduction
On November 8, 2023, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Abdul Naushad, M.D.
(Respondent) of Poplar Bluff, Missouri. OSC, at 1. The OSC proposes the
revocation of Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration
(registration) No. BN7853864 on the ground that he has ``no state
authority to handle controlled substances.'' \1\ Id. (citing 21 U.S.C.
824(a)(3)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``A jury found . . . [Respondent] guilty of health care
fraud in 2022. . . . He is currently serving a prison sentence in
connection with the crime. Since he cannot practice medicine before
his release, he let his Missouri controlled substance license expire
on August 31, 2023, and he let his . . . [registration] expire on
October 31, 2023.'' Respondent's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to
the Government's Motion for Summary Disposition and to the Order to
Show Cause dated December 18, 2023 (Respondent Opposition), at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By letter dated November 30, 2023, Respondent requested a hearing.
The Government requested summary disposition in its ``Submission of
Evidence and Motion for Summary Disposition'' dated December 7, 2023
(Government Summary Disposition Motion). Respondent opposed summary
disposition arguing, among other things, that Respondent's registration
expired before the OSC was filed, Respondent ``has not attempted to
renew'' it, and, ``[s]ince there is nothing to revoke,'' summary
disposition should be denied and the OSC should be dismissed.
(Respondent Opposition), at 1-6. The Chief Administrative Law Judge,
John J. Mulrooney II, denied the Government's Motion, ``sua sponte''
granted summary disposition for Respondent, and recommended that the
OSC ``be dismissed based on the Agency's lack of jurisdiction over the
registration.'' Order Denying the Government's Motion for Summary
Disposition, Granting a Summary Disposition on Behalf of the
Respondent, and Recommending Dismissal of the Order to Show Cause dated
January 4, 2024 (RD), at 6.
After considering the entirety of the record, the Agency revokes
Respondent's registration because of his undisputed loss of authority
to dispense controlled substances in Missouri, the state where he is
registered. 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3); infra section III; Respondent
Opposition, at 1; Government Motion, at 4; RD, at 2.
II. The Agency's Jurisdiction <SUP>2</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ RD, at 6 (``[I]t is herein recommended that the Order to
Show Cause dated November 8, 2023, be dismissed based on the
Agency's lack of jurisdiction over the registration.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To effectuate the goals of combating the international and
interstate traffic in illicit drugs, conquering drug abuse, and
controlling the legitimate and illegitimate traffic in controlled
substances, ``Congress devised a closed regulatory system making it
unlawful to . . . dispense . . . any controlled substance except in a
manner authorized by the C[ontrolled] S[ubstances] A[ct]'' (CSA).
Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 12-13 (2005). Among the responsibilities
and prerogatives that the CSA assigns to the Attorney General are to
register practitioners to dispense controlled substances, and to de-
register them. E.g., 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1) and 824(a). The Attorney
General delegated these responsibilities to the DEA Administrator. 28
CFR 0.100.
The CSA provides that the Administrator ``shall register
practitioners . . . to dispense . . . controlled substances . . . if
the applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled substances
under the laws of the State in which he practices.'' 21 U.S.C.
823(g)(1). In 21 U.S.C. 824(a), the CSA also provides that the
Administrator may suspend or revoke a registration for several reasons,
including upon a finding that the registrant ``has had his State
license or registration suspended, revoked, or denied by competent
State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in
the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.'' 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3).
The CSA does not place a time restriction or constraint on the
Administrator's administrative law enforcement investigations,
findings, or actions regarding a registrant that may culminate in the
suspension or revocation of the registrant's registration, nor is there
anything in the record transmitted to the Agency that posits that it
does.\3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Respondent argues that, as Respondent's registration
``expired before the DEA filed an Order to Show Cause, seeking to
revoke,'' the ``Tribunal should deny the [revocation] request . . .
[s]ince there is nothing to revoke.'' Respondent Opposition, at 1.
The RD relies heavily on 21 CFR 1306.36(i) which concerns
registrants' options for renewing their DEA registrations. The terms
of subsection (i) do not resolve this matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 54060]]
The CSA's law enforcement provisions, such as 21 U.S.C. 824(a),
including the publication of an Agency Decision and Order in the
Federal Register, 21 U.S.C. 877, record and memorialize a registrant's,
not the associated registration's, history under, and compliance with,
the CSA, as well as afford the registrant the opportunity to seek
judicial review of that Agency Decision and Order, among other
things.\4\ Put another way, one way that the Administrator carries out
the CSA is by investigating and administratively adjudicating a
registrant's CSA-relevant actions and inactions. When the registrant's
actions or inactions call for it, the sanction may be suspension or
revocation of the registrant's registration. 21 U.S.C. 824(a). While
the sanction involves the registration, the sanction is levied on the
registrant and remains in the record throughout the rest of the
registrant-Agency relationship, regardless of whether that relationship
is either continuous or intermittent. There is good reason for this:
otherwise, a registrant who has committed misconduct could thwart law
enforcement and avoid accountability simply by not renewing his
registration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The brief of Respondent and the RD posit that the
Administrator is precluded from carrying out the CSA
responsibilities that the Attorney General delegated to her because
the OSC was issued after the expiration date assigned to
Respondent's registration. See, e.g., RD, at 3 (``The issue in this
case and on these facts is whether the Government's OSC legally
warrants a sanction against the . . . [registration] that the
Respondent previously held where the charging document was issued
after the . . . [registration's] expiration (it does not).''). This
position views the Administrator's CSA responsibilities as
``sanction[ing]'' a registration as opposed to investigating and
administratively adjudicating a registrant's CSA-relevant actions
and inactions pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The particular instant record facts, such as the date that the OSC
was issued and the expiration date assigned to Respondent's
registration, do not distinguish this matter from the Agency's
constitutional and federal common law analyses in Jeffrey D. Olsen,
M.D.\5\ 84 FR 68474, 68475-479 (2019); contra Respondent's Opposition,
at 4 and RD, at 5-6 (arguing that Jeffrey D. Olsen, M.D. should be
distinguished from the instant case). In that watershed Decision
revoking a respondent's registration, the Agency rejected the
Government's argument that the matter was ``moot'' and should be
dismissed because the registrant's registration had expired during the
pendency of the proceedings and before a final Decision and Order had
been issued. Instead, the Agency adjudicated the matter to finality
following its analysis of the constitutional origins of administrative
agencies, applicable legal authority, and sound law enforcement policy.
Among other things, the Agency discussed differences between Article
III courts and adjudications that are not bound by Article III ``case
or controversy'' limitations, such as DEA administrative agency
adjudications.\6\ Id. at 84 FR at 68478-79. Those analyses continue to
apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ In Jeffrey D. Olsen, M.D., the doctor did not renew his
registration during the Agency's adjudication process. 84 FR 68474-
75. The Agency's published Decision is dated just shy of one year
after the expiration date assigned to the doctor's registration,
rejects the suggestion of mootness, and adjudicates the matter to
finality. Id. at 68474, 68489.
\6\ The Agency recognized, in Jeffrey D. Olsen, M.D., that it
has the discretion to adopt so-called ``case or controversy''
limitations. 84 FR 68478-79.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with Jeffrey D. Olsen, M.D., the Agency finds that adjudicating
this matter to finality supports future interactions between the Agency
and Respondent, should they occur, informs current and prospective
members of the registrant community about the Agency's expectations of
them, provides continuing education to all DEA personnel, helps
coordinate law enforcement efforts, and informs stakeholders, such as
legislators and the public, about the Agency's work and allows them to
provide feedback to the Agency, thereby helping shape how the Agency
carries out its CSA responsibilities. Id. at 68,475-79; Steven
Kotsonis, M.D., 85 FR 85667, 85668-69 (2020). Specifically for
Respondent, his filings state that ``he cannot practice medicine before
his release,'' indicating that he may resume the practice of medicine
after his release. Respondent Opposition, at 1.
Accordingly, the Agency finds that the benefits of adjudicating
this matter to finality include memorializing for the Agency's records
the circumstances surrounding Respondent's loss of state authority,
Respondent's conviction and incarceration, and Respondent's
transparency in his communications with the Agency. Additionally, as
this investigation and its adjudication to finality are not
particularly complex, it is also an efficient and effective use of
Agency resources to issue a final Decision and Order to inform
Respondent and the current and prospective members of the registrant
community about the significant legal principles it implicates. Jeffrey
D. Olsen, M.D., 84 FR 68475-79; Steven Kotsonis, M.D., 85 FR 85668-69.
III. Findings of Fact
The Agency finds uncontroverted record evidence that registration
number BN7853864 is assigned to Respondent at his registered address in
Poplar Bluff, Missouri. Respondent Opposition, at 1; GX 1, at 1. The
Agency further finds uncontroverted record evidence that Respondent's
Missouri controlled substance registration expired on August 31, 2023.
Respondent Opposition, at 1.
According to Missouri online records, of which the Agency takes
official notice, Respondent's Missouri controlled substance
registration remains expired.\7\ Primary Source Verification for
Missouri Controlled Substance Registrations, <a href="https://healthapps.dhss.mo.gov/mohworxsearch/RegistrantSearch.aspx">https://healthapps.dhss.mo.gov/mohworxsearch/RegistrantSearch.aspx</a> (last
visited date of signature of this Order).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Further, the Missouri ``non-active'' medical license look-up
shows the status of Respondent's Missouri Medical Physician &
Surgeon license (2002024819) as ``lapsed.'' Missouri Division of
Professional Registration, <a href="https://pr.mo.gov/licensee-search-nonactive.asp">https://pr.mo.gov/licensee-search-nonactive.asp</a> (last visited date of signature of this Order).
\8\ Under the Administrative Procedure Act, an agency ``may take
official notice of facts at any stage in a proceeding--even in the
final decision.'' United States Department of Justice, Attorney
General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act 80 (1947) (Wm.
W. Gaunt & Sons, Inc., Reprint 1979). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 556(e),
``[w]hen an agency decision rests on official notice of a material
fact not appearing in the evidence in the record, a party is
entitled, on timely request, to an opportunity to show the
contrary.'' Accordingly, Respondent may dispute the Agency's finding
by filing a properly supported motion for reconsideration of
findings of fact within fifteen calendar days of the date of this
Order. Any such motion and response shall be filed and served by
email to the other party and to Office of the Administrator, Drug
Enforcement Administration at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9ffbfafeb1fefbfbf0b1feebebf0edf1fae6ecdffbfafeb1f8f0e9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ceaaabafe0afaaaaa1e0afbabaa1bca0abb7bd8eaaabafe0a9a1b8">[email protected]</span></a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, the Agency finds uncontroverted record evidence that
Respondent is not authorized to handle controlled substances in
Missouri, the state in which he is registered with DEA, and has not
been since August 31, 2023. Id.
IV. 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 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 Agency has also long held that 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
[[Page 54061]]
registration.\9\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 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(g)(1). Because
Congress has clearly mandated that a practitioner possess state
authority in order to be deemed a practitioner under the CSA, the
Agency 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., James L. Hooper, 76 FR
71371-72; Sheran Arden Yeates, M.D., 71 FR 39130, 39131 (2006);
Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 FR 51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby Watts,
M.D., 53 FR 11919, 11920 (1988); Frederick Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43
FR 27617.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Missouri statute, ``dispense'' means ``to deliver a
narcotic or controlled dangerous drug to an ultimate user or research
subject by or pursuant to the lawful order of a practitioner including
the prescribing, administering, packaging, labeling, or compounding
necessary to prepare the substance for such delivery.'' Mo. Rev. Stat.
section 195.010 (12) (2018). Under the same Missouri statute,
``practitioner'' means a ``physician . . . or other person licensed,
registered or otherwise permitted by this state to distribute,
dispense, conduct research with respect to or administer . . . a
controlled substance in the course of professional practice . . . in
this state.'' Id. section 195.010 (39). Further, in Missouri, ``[n]o
person shall . . . dispense . . . any controlled substance . . .
without having first obtained a registration issued by the department
of health and senior services.'' Id. section 195.030 (2); see also id.
section 195.030 (3) (``Persons registered by the department of health
and senior services pursuant to this chapter to . . . dispense . . .
controlled substances are authorized to . . . dispense such substances
. . . to the extent authorized by their registration and in conformity
with other provisions of this chapter and chapter 579.'').
Here, the undisputed record evidence is that, as of August 31,
2023, and continuing to the present, Respondent is not registered in
Missouri to dispense controlled substances. Supra section III. As
explained above, a physician in Missouri must be registered with the
state to dispense controlled substances. Supra. Thus, because
Respondent lacks authority to dispense controlled substances in
Missouri, Respondent is not eligible to maintain his DEA registration
addressed in that State. Supra; see also RD, at 3. Accordingly, the
Agency orders that Respondent's registration 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.
BN7853864 issued to Abdul Naushad, 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 Abdul Naushad, M.D., to renew
or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application
of Abdul Naushad, M.D., for additional registration in Missouri. This
Order is effective July 29, 2024.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on
June 21, 2024, 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. 2024-14207 Filed 6-27-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on June 28, 2024.
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.