Notice2025-10364
Ron Dunchok, 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 9, 2025
Issuing agencies
Justice DepartmentDrug Enforcement Administration
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 109 (Monday, June 9, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 109 (Monday, June 9, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24294-24296]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-10364]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Ron Dunchok, M.D.; Decision and Order
On October 15, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Ron Dunchok, M.D.,
of San Dimas, 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. BD0178081, alleging that
Registrant's registration should be revoked because Registrant is
``currently without authority to handle controlled substances in the
State of California, the state in which [he is] registered with DEA.''
Id. at 1-2 (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
[[Page 24295]]
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
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
January 15, 2025, the Agency finds that service of the OSC on
Registrant was adequate. The included declaration from a DEA
Diversion Investigator (DI) indicates that on October 16, 2024, the
DI attempted to personally deliver the OSC to Registrant's
registered address in California, but was unsuccessful, as
Registrant no longer worked there. RFAAX 2, at 1-2. The office
manager at this location agreed to accept a copy of the OSC and
deliver it to Registrant. Id. On October 17, 2024, the DI mailed a
copy of the OSC to Registrant's known residence in Arizona. Id. at
2. On the same date, the DI emailed a copy of the OSC to three email
addresses associated with Registrant. Id. On October 21, 2024,
Registrant responded to one of these emails and referred the DI to
his attorney. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
or about February 2, 2023, the Medical Board of California revoked
Registrant's California medical license, effective March 6, 2023, but
stayed the revocation for three years during which time Registrant was
placed on probation subject to various terms and conditions. RFAAX 1,
at 1-2. On November 8, 2023, the Medical Board of California issued a
Cease Practice Order to Registrant, prohibiting him from practicing
medicine due to violating the terms of his probation. Id. at 2.
According to California online records, of which the Agency takes
official notice, Registrant's California medical license was
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 medicine in California, the state in which he is registered
with DEA.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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).
\3\ 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.'' The material fact here is
that Registrant, as of the date of this decision, is not licensed to
practice medicine in California. 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#442021256a2520202b6a2530302b362a213d37042021256a232b32"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="056160642b6461616a2b6471716a776b607c76456160642b626a73">[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 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).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 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 71371-72; Sheran Arden Yeats,
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 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 medicine 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 medicine 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.
BD0178081 issued to Ron Dunchok, 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 Ron Dunchok, M.D., to renew or
modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of
Ron Dunchok, M.D., for additional registration in California. This
Order is effective July 9, 2025.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on
June 2, 2025, by Acting Administrator Robert J. Murphy. That document
with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For
administrative purposes only, and in
[[Page 24296]]
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. 2025-10364 Filed 6-6-25; 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 June 9, 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.