Notice2025-13713
Thomas Draschil, 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
July 22, 2025
Issuing agencies
Justice DepartmentDrug Enforcement Administration
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 138 (Tuesday, July 22, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 138 (Tuesday, July 22, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34519-34520]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-13713]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Thomas Draschil, M.D.; Decision and Order
On February 19, 2025, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Thomas Draschil,
M.D., of Salt Lake City, Utah (Registrant). Request for Final Agency
Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 2, at 1, 4. The OSC proposed the
revocation of Registrant's DEA Certificate of Registration No.
FD9980118, alleging that Registrant is ``currently without authority to
. . . handle controlled substances in the State of Utah, 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. at
2-3 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). Here, Registrant did not request a
hearing. RFAA, at 2-3.\1\ ``A default, unless 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on the Government's submissions in its RFAA dated
March 28, 2025, the Agency finds that service of the OSC on
Registrant was proper. The included declaration from a DEA Diversion
Investigator (DI) indicates that on February 19, 2025, DI personally
served Registrant with a copy of the OSC and Registrant signed a
delivery receipt. RFAA, at 2; see also RFAAX 1, at 1, 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. at 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), and 1301.46. RFAA, at 1, 4;
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 deemed admitted. According to the
OSC, Registrant's Utah physician license and Utah controlled substance
license were voluntarily surrendered on July 29, 2024. RFAAX 2, at 1-2;
see also RFAAX 3, at 1-8. According to Utah online records, of which
the Agency takes official notice,\2\ Registrant's Utah licenses
continue to have a status of ``Surrendered.'' Utah DOPL License Search,
<a href="https://secure.utah.gov/llv/search/index.html">https://secure.utah.gov/llv/search/index.html</a> (last visited date of
signature of this Order). Accordingly, the Agency finds that Registrant
is not licensed as a practitioner in Utah, the
[[Page 34520]]
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 Order, is not licensed as a
practitioner in Utah. 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#701415115e1114141f5e1104041f021e150903301415115e171f06"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a7c3c2c689c6c3c3c889c6d3d3c8d5c9c2ded4e7c3c2c689c0c8d1">[email protected]</span></a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General may 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 at 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 at 27617.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Utah statute, ``practitioner'' means a ``physician . .
. or other 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.'' Utah Code Ann. Sec. 58-37-2(1)(jj) (West 2025).
Additionally, ``[e]very person who . . . distributes, prescribes,
dispenses, [or] administers . . . any controlled substance in Schedules
I through V within [the] state . . . shall obtain a license issued by
the [Division of Professional Licensing].'' Id. at 58-37-6(2)(a)(i).
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that both
Registrant's Utah physician license and Registrant's Utah controlled
substance license have been surrendered. As such, Registrant is not
authorized to handle controlled substances in Utah and thus is not
eligible to maintain a DEA registration in Utah. Accordingly, the
Agency will order that Registrant's DEA registration in Utah 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.
FD9980118 issued to Thomas Draschil, 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 Thomas Draschil, M.D., to renew
or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application
of Thomas Draschil, M.D., for additional registration in Utah. This
Order is effective August 21, 2025.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on
July 16, 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 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. 2025-13713 Filed 7-21-25; 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 July 22, 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.