Notice2025-00395
Kim Routh, D.O.; 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 10, 2025
Issuing agencies
Justice DepartmentDrug Enforcement Administration
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 6 (Friday, January 10, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 6 (Friday, January 10, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2028-2029]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00395]
[[Page 2028]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Kim Routh, D.O.; Decision and Order
On May 1, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Kim Routh, D.O., of
Grove City, Ohio (Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA),
Exhibit (RFAAX) C, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed the revocation of
Registrant's Certificate of Registration No. BR9077000, alleging that
Registrant's registration should be revoked because Registrant is
``currently without authority to prescribe, administer, dispense, or
otherwise handle controlled substances in the State of Ohio, 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.
(citing 21 CFR 1301.43). Here, Registrant did not request a hearing.
RFAA, at 2.\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 June
11, 2024, the Agency finds that service of the OSC on Registrant was
adequate. The included declaration from a DEA Diversion Investigator
(DI) indicates that on May 6, 2024, Registrant was personally served
with a copy of the OSC. RFAAX 1, at 2; RFAAX D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. Sec. 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), 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, on
February 14, 2024, the State Medical Board of Ohio permanently revoked
Registrant's Ohio medical license. RFAAX 2, at 2. According to Ohio
online records, of which the Agency takes official notice, Registrant's
Ohio medical license remains revoked.\2\ eLicense Ohio Professional
Licensure License Lookup, <a href="https://elicense.ohio.gov/oh_verifylicense">https://elicense.ohio.gov/oh_verifylicense</a>
(last visited date of signature of this Order). Accordingly, the Agency
finds that Registrant is not licensed to practice medicine in Ohio, 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#badedfdb94dbdeded594dbceced5c8d4dfc3c9fadedfdb94ddd5cc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="650100044b0401010a4b0411110a170b001c16250100044b020a13">[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.
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. Sec. 802(21).''). The Agency has applied these principles
consistently. See, e.g., James L. Hooper, M.D., 76 FR 71,371, 71,372
(2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 F. App'x 826 (4th Cir. 2012);
Frederick Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR 27,616, 27,617 (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, M.D., 76 FR at 71,371-72; Sheran Arden Yeats,
M.D., 71 FR 39,130, 39,131 (2006); Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 FR
51,104, 51,105 (1993); Bobby Watts, M.D., 53 FR 11,919, 11,920
(1988); Frederick Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR at 27,617.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Ohio statute, ``[n]o person shall knowingly obtain,
possess, or use a controlled substance or a controlled substance
analog,'' except pursuant to a ``prescription issued by a licensed
health professional authorized to prescribe drugs if the prescription
was issued for a legitimate medical purpose.'' Ohio Rev. Code Ann.
Sec. 2925.11(A), (B)(1)(d) (West 2024). Further, a `` `[l]icensed
health professional authorized to prescribe drugs' or `prescriber'
means an individual who is authorized by law to prescribe drugs or
dangerous drugs or drug therapy related devices in the course of the
individual's professional practice.'' Id. Sec. 4729.01(I). The Ohio
statute further defines an authorized prescriber as ``[a] physician
authorized under Chapter 4731. of the Revised Code to practice medicine
and surgery, osteopathic medicine and surgery, or podiatric medicine
and surgery.'' Id. Sec. 4729.01(I)(4). Additionally, Ohio law permits
``[a] licensed health professional authorized to prescribe drugs, if
acting in the course of professional practice, in accordance with the
laws regulating the professional's practice'' to prescribe or
administer schedule II, III, IV, and V controlled substances to
patients. Id. Sec. 3719.06(A)(1)(a)-(b).
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant
lacks a license to practice medicine in Ohio. As discussed above, an
individual must be a licensed health professional authorized to
prescribe drugs in order to handle controlled substances in Ohio. Thus,
because Registrant lacks a license to practice medicine in Ohio and,
therefore, is not authorized to handle controlled substances in Ohio,
Registrant is not eligible to maintain a DEA registration. Accordingly,
the Agency will order that Registrant's DEA registration be revoked.
[[Page 2029]]
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.
BR9077000 issued to Kim Routh, D.O. 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 Kim Routh, D.O., to renew or
modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of
Kim Routh, D.O., for additional registration in Ohio. This Order is
effective February 10, 2025.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on
January 3, 2025, 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. 2025-00395 Filed 1-8-25; 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 January 10, 2025.
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.