Notice2024-22202
Charles Sangmoah, P.A.; 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
September 27, 2024
Issuing agencies
Justice DepartmentDrug Enforcement Administration
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 188 (Friday, September 27, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 188 (Friday, September 27, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79314-79315]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-22202]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Charles Sangmoah, P.A.; Decision and Order
On January 18, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Charles Sangmoah,
P.A., of Huntington Park, CA (Registrant). Request for Final Agency
Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 1, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed the
revocation of Registrant's Certificate of Registration No. MS2342842,
alleging that Registrant's registration should be revoked because
Registrant is ``currently without authority to handle controlled
substances in California, the state in which [he is] registered with
DEA.'' Id. (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).
The OSC notified Registrant of his right to file with DEA 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 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). Here, Registrant did not
request a hearing. RFAA, at 3.\1\ ``A default, unless excused, shall be
deemed to constitute a waiver of the [registrant's] right to a hearing
and an admission of the factual allegations of the [OSC].'' 21 CFR
1301.43(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on the Government's submissions in its RFAA dated
March 12, 2024, the Agency finds that service of the OSC on
Registrant was adequate. The included declaration from a DEA
Diversion Investigator indicates that on February 2, 2024, the OSC
was unsuccessfully mailed to both Registrant's registered address
and mail-to address. RFAAX 2, at 1-2. On February 9, 2024, the DEA
Diversion Investigator received an email from the ``Mail Delivery
Subsystem'' account, confirming successful delivery of the OSC to
Registrant. Id. at 2; see also id., Attachment 3-4. On February 12,
2024, the OSC was unsuccessfully mailed to a third address verified
by the US Postal Inspection Service to be associated with
Registrant. RFAAX 2, at 2-3. The Agency finds that Registrant was
successfully served the OSC by email and that the Diversion
Investigator's efforts to serve Registrant by other means were ``
`reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise
[Registrant] of the pendency of the action.' '' Jones v. Flowers,
547 U.S. 220, 226 (2006) (quoting Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank &
Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950)). Therefore, due process notice
requirements have been satisfied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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] Sec. 1316.67.'' Id. Sec. 1301.43(f)(1). Here,
the Government has requested final agency action based on Registrant's
default pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(d)-(f), 1301.46. RFAA, at 1; see
also 21 CFR 1316.67.
Findings of Fact
The Agency finds that, in light of Registrant's default, the
factual allegations in the OSC are admitted. According to the OSC,
effective May 31, 2023, Registrant surrendered his California physician
assistant license. RFAAX 1, at 1. According to California online
records, of which the Agency takes official notice, Registrant's
California physician assistant license remains surrendered.\2\
California DCA License Search, <a href="https://search.dca.ca.gov">https://search.dca.ca.gov</a> (last visited
date of signature of this Order). Accordingly, the Agency finds that
Registrant is not licensed to practice as a physician assistant in
California, the state in which he is registered with DEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 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, Registrant 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#8eeaebefa0efeaeae1a0effafae1fce0ebf7fdceeaebefa0e9e1f8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bfdbdade91dedbdbd091decbcbd0cdd1dac6ccffdbdade91d8d0c9">[email protected]</span></a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized
to 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.
See, e.g., James L. Hooper, D.O., 76 FR 71371, 71372 (2011), pet. for
rev. denied, 481 F. App'x 826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh Blanton,
D.O., 43 FR 27616, 27617 (1978).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ This rule derives from the text of two provisions of the
Controlled Substances Act (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, 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., James L. Hooper, 76 FR 71371-72; Sheran Arden Yeates, D.O., 71
FR 39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick A. Ricci, D.O., 58 FR 51104, 51105
(1993); Bobby Watts, D.O., 53 FR 11919, 11920 (1988); Frederick
Marsh Blanton, 43 FR 27617.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 79315]]
According to California statute, ``dispense'' means ``to deliver a
controlled substance to an ultimate user or research subject by or
pursuant to the lawful order of a practitioner, including the
prescribing, furnishing, packaging, labeling, or compounding necessary
to prepare the substance for that delivery.'' Cal. Health & Safety Code
section 11010 (West 2024). Further, a ``practitioner'' means a 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 in [the]
state.'' Id. section 11026(c).
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant
currently lacks authority to practice as a physician assistant in
California. As discussed above, an individual must be a licensed
practitioner to dispense a controlled substance in California. Thus,
because Registrant currently lacks authority to practice as a physician
assistant in California and, therefore, is not currently authorized to
handle controlled substances in California, Registrant is not eligible
to maintain a DEA registration. Accordingly, the Agency will order that
Registrant's DEA 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.
MS2342842 issued to Charles Sangmoah, P.A. 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 Charles Sangmoah, P.A., to
renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending
application of Charles Sangmoah, P.A., for additional registration in
California. This Order is effective October 28, 2024.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on
September 20, 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. 2024-22202 Filed 9-26-24; 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 September 27, 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.