Notice2025-10501
Harry Kram, 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 10, 2025
Issuing agencies
Justice DepartmentDrug Enforcement Administration
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 110 (Tuesday, June 10, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 110 (Tuesday, June 10, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24412-24414]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-10501]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Harry Kram, M.D.; Decision and Order
On September 24, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Harry Kram, M.D., of
Torrance, California (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. AK1539444, 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 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ According to Agency records, Registrant's registration
expired on December 31, 2024. The fact that a registrant allows his
registration to expire during the pendency of an OSC does not impact
the Agency's jurisdiction or prerogative under the Controlled
Substances Act (CSA) to adjudicate the OSC to finality. Jeffrey D.
Olsen, M.D., 84 FR 68474, 68476-79 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. at
2 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). Here, Registrant did not request a hearing.
RFAA, at 2.\2\ ``A default, unless
[[Page 24413]]
excused, shall be deemed to constitute a waiver of the registrant's/
applicant's right to a hearing and an admission of the factual
allegations of the [OSC].'' 21 CFR 1301.43(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Based on the Government's submissions in its RFAA dated
December 12, 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 October 2, 2024, the
DI personally left a copy of the OSC at Registrant's known personal
residence. RFAAX 2, at 1-2. The DI also mailed a copy of the OSC to
Registrant's known personal residence, Registrant's registered
address, and two additional addresses associated with Registrant.
Id. at 2. Finally, the DI emailed a copy of the OSC to five
different email addresses associated with Registrant. Id. Here, the
Agency finds that Registrant was successfully served the OSC by
email and that the DI'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)); see also
Mohammed S. Aljanaby, M.D., 82 FR 34552, 34552 (2017) (finding that
service by email satisfies due process where the email is not
returned as undeliverable and other methods have been unsuccessful).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. 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 September 12, 2023, the Medical Board of California (the
Board) revoked Registrant's California medical license, 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
December 29, 2023, the Board issued a Cease Practice Order that
prohibited Registrant from practicing medicine in California because
Registrant violated the terms of his probation. Id. at 2.
According to California online records, of which the Agency takes
official notice,\3\ Registrant's California medical license is
``Delinquent'' with no practice permitted. 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.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 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).
\4\ 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 the DEA Office of the
Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6c08090d420d080803420d1818031e0209151f2c08090d420b031a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="791d1c1857181d1d1657180d0d160b171c000a391d1c18571e160f">[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).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 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, 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 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 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. at 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.
AK1539444 issued to Harry Kram, 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 Harry Kram, M.D., to renew or
modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of
Harry Kram, M.D., for additional registration in California. This Order
is effective July 10, 2025.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on
June 4, 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 compliance with requirements of
the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal
Register
[[Page 24414]]
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. 2025-10501 Filed 6-9-25; 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 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.