Notice2025-14077
Taha Dias, 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 25, 2025
Issuing agencies
Justice DepartmentDrug Enforcement Administration
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 141 (Friday, July 25, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 141 (Friday, July 25, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35313-35315]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-14077]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Taha Dias, M.D.; Decision and Order
On November 4, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Taha Dias, M.D., of
Frostproof, Florida (Registrant). OSC, at 1; Request for Final Agency
Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 1, at 1. The OSC proposed the revocation
of Registrant's DEA Certificate of Registration No. BD9971208, alleging
that Registrant has committed such acts as would render its
registration inconsistent with the public interest. OSC, at 1 (citing
21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1); 824(a)(4)).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on the Government's submissions in its RFAA dated
February 7, 2025, the Agency finds that service of the OSC on
Registrant was adequate. Specifically, the Declaration from a DEA
Diversion Investigator (DI) indicates that the DI successfully
served the OSC via email to Registrant's registered email address
and via mail to Registrant's registered address. RFAAX 2, at 2. On
November 22, 2024, Registrant called the DI and the DI informed
Registrant that she had mailed and emailed a copy of the OSC, and
informed Registrant of the OSC's meaning and effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More specifically, the OSC alleged that between July 2022 and
December 2023, Registrant repeatedly violated federal and Florida state
law by issuing prescriptions for controlled substances outside the
usual course of professional practice and for other than a legitimate
medical purpose, in violation of 21 CFR 1306.04(a); and Fla. Stat.
Sec. 456.44(3).\2\ OSC, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Agency need not adjudicate the criminal violations
alleged in the OSC/ISO. Ruan v. United States, 597 U.S. 450 (2022)
(decided in the context of criminal proceedings).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 7, 2025, the Government submitted a request for final
agency action (RFAA) requesting that the Agency issue a default final
order revoking Registrant's registration. RFAA, at 1. After carefully
reviewing the entire record and conducting the analysis as set forth in
more detail below, the Agency grants the Government's request for final
agency action and revokes Registrant's registration.
I. Default Determination
Under 21 CFR 1301.43, a registrant entitled to a hearing who fails
to file a timely hearing request ``within 30 days after the date of
receipt of the [OSC] . . . shall be deemed to have waived their right
to a hearing and to be in default'' unless ``good cause'' is
established for the failure. 21 CFR 1301.43(a) & (c)(1). In the absence
of a demonstration of good cause, a registrant who fails to timely file
an answer also is ``deemed to have waived their right to a hearing and
to be in default.'' 21 CFR 1301.43(c)(2). Unless excused, a default is
deemed to constitute ``an admission of the factual allegations of the
[OSC].'' 21 CFR 1301.43(e).
Here, 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. RFAAX 1, at 4-6 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). According to the
Government's RFAA, Registrant failed to request a hearing. RFAA, at 1.
Thus, the Agency finds that Registrant is in default and therefore has
admitted to the factual allegations in the OSC. 21 CFR 1301.43(e).
II. Applicable Law
As the Supreme Court stated in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1
(2005), ``the main objectives of the [Controlled Substances Act (CSA)]
were to conquer drug abuse and control the legitimate and illegitimate
traffic in controlled substances.'' 545 U.S. at 12. Gonzales explained
that:
Congress was particularly concerned with the need to prevent the
diversion of drugs from legitimate to illicit channels. To
effectuate these goals, Congress devised a closed regulatory system
making it unlawful to manufacture, distribute, dispense, or possess
any controlled substance except in a manner authorized by the CSA .
. . . The CSA and its implementing regulations set forth strict
requirements regarding registration, labeling and packaging,
production quotas, drug security, and recordkeeping.
Id. at 12-14.
The OSC/ISO's allegations concern the CSA's ``statutory and
regulatory provisions . . . mandating . . . compliance with . . .
prescription requirements'' and, therefore, go to the heart of the
CSA's ``closed regulatory system'' specifically designed ``to conquer
drug abuse and to control the legitimate and illegitimate traffic in
controlled substances,'' and ``to prevent the diversion of drugs from
legitimate to illicit channels.'' Id. at 12-14, 27.
A. Allegation That Registrant Improperly Prescribed Controlled
Substances
According to the CSA's implementing regulations, prescriptions may
only be issued by an individual practitioner who is ``[a]uthorized to
prescribe controlled substances by the jurisdiction in which he is
licensed to practice his profession'' and has either been issued a DEA
registration or is exempted from registration under DEA regulations. 21
CFR 1306.03. Furthermore, a lawful controlled substance order or
prescription is one that is ``issued for a legitimate medical purpose
by an individual practitioner acting in the usual course of his
professional practice.'' 21 CFR 1306.04(a). A ``practitioner must
establish and maintain a bona fide doctor-patient relationship in order
to act `in the usual course of . . . professional practice' and to
issue a prescription for a `legitimate
[[Page 35314]]
medical purpose.' '' Dewey C. MacKay, M.D., 75 FR 49956, 49973 (2010).
Moreover, Florida law requires a practitioner to, among other
things: (1) prescribe controlled substances only after conducting a
complete medical history and physical examination; (2) document the
presence of one or more recognized medical indications for the use of a
controlled substance; (3) create a written treatment plan with goals
and objectives; (4) discuss the risks and benefits of the use of
controlled substances with the patient; (5) see the patient at regular
intervals and conduct periodic reviews of the effectiveness of the
treatment; (6) assess patient risk for aberrant drug-related behavior,
continue to monitor that risk on an ongoing basis, and provide special
attention to patients at risk for abusing their medication; and (7)
maintain accurate, current, and complete records that are accessible
and readily available for review. Fla. Stat. Sec. 456.44; see also
Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r. 64B8-9.013(2) (imposing similar requirements
on practitioners prescribing controlled substances to treat acute
pain).
Florida law also requires that medical records have ``sufficient
detail to clearly demonstrate why the course of treatment was
undertaken'' and ``contain sufficient information to identify the
patient, support the diagnosis, justify the treatment and document the
course and results of treatment accurately.'' Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R.
64B8-9.003.
III. Findings of Fact
In light of Registrant's default, the factual allegations in the
OSC are deemed admitted. 21 CFR 1301.43(e). Accordingly, Registrant
admits that between July 5, 2022, and December 4, 2023, he issued
numerous controlled substance prescriptions without conducting medical
examinations, establishing bona fide physician-patient relationships,
and maintaining proper medical records.
Specifically, Registrant admits that he issued nine prescriptions
for promethazine with codeine (a Schedule V opioid) to nine
individuals,\3\ knowing that these prescriptions would be obtained by
someone with no legitimate relationship to the nine individuals to whom
the prescriptions were issued. RFAAX 1, at 11. Registrant admits that
on July 5, 2022, he sent a text message to the pharmacist in charge of
a local pharmacy, Mr. Y.A., informing Mr. Y.A. that he would be sending
these nine prescriptions that lacked a legitimate medical purpose.
Registrant admits that these prescriptions were issued outside the
usual course of professional practice in Florida and lacked a
legitimate medical purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ These individuals included R.S., J.M., P.C., A.C., K.S.,
B.M., J.L., V.L., and D.R.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Registrant also admits that between December 9, 2022, and December
4, 2023, he issued nine prescriptions for controlled substances to
M.S., including prescriptions for oxycodone (a Schedule II opioid),
alprazolam (a Schedule IV benzodiazepine), and promethazine with
codeine. RFAAX 1, at 11. Registrant issued these prescriptions to
M.S.--who was confined in a correctional facility at the time--without
conducting a medical examination or evaluation or establishing a bona
fide physician-patient relationship. Id. Registrant admits that these
prescriptions were issued outside the usual course of professional
practice in Florida and lacked a legitimate medical purpose. Id.
Accordingly, the Agency finds substantial record evidence that
Registrant issued at least 18 prescriptions that lacked a legitimate
medical purpose, and that Registrant issued these prescriptions outside
the usual course of professional practice in Florida.
IV. Public Interest Determination
A. Legal Background on Public Interest Determinations
When the CSA's requirements are not met, the Attorney General ``may
deny, suspend, or revoke [a] registration if . . . the [registrant's]
registration would be `inconsistent with the public interest.' ''
Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 251 (2006) (quoting 21 U.S.C.
824(a)(4)). In the case of a ``practitioner,'' Congress directed the
Attorney General to consider five factors in making the public interest
determination. Id.; 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1)(A-E).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The five factors are:
(A) The recommendation of the appropriate State licensing board
or professional disciplinary authority.
(B) The [registrant's] experience in dispensing, or conducting
research with respect to controlled substances.
(C) The [registrant's] conviction record under Federal or State
laws relating to the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of
controlled substances.
(D) Compliance with applicable State, Federal, or local laws
relating to controlled substances.
(E) Such other conduct which may threaten the public health and
safety.
21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1)(A-E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The five factors are considered in the disjunctive. Gonzales v.
Oregon, 546 U.S. at 292-93 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (``It is well
established that these factors are to be considered in the
disjunctive,'' quoting In re Arora, 60 FR 4447, 4448 (1995)); Robert A.
Leslie, M.D., 68 FR 15227, 15230 (2003). Each factor is weighed on a
case-by-case basis. David H. Gillis, M.D., 58 FR 37507, 37508 (1993);
see Morall v. Drug Enf't Admin., 412 F.3d 165, 181 (D.C. Cir. 2005)
(describing the Agency's adjudicative process as ``applying a multi-
factor test through case-by-case adjudication,'' quoting LeMoyne-Owen
Coll. v. N.L.R.B., 357 F.3d 55, 61 (D.C. Cir. 2004)). Any one factor,
or combination of factors, may be decisive, David H. Gillis, M.D., 58
FR at 37508, and the Agency ``may give each factor the weight . . .
deem[ed] appropriate in determining whether a registration should be
revoked or an application for registration denied.'' Morall, 412 F.3d.
at 185 n.2 (Henderson, J., concurring) (quoting Robert A. Smith, M.D.,
70 FR 33207, 33208 (2007)); see also Penick Corp. v. Drug Enf't Admin.,
491 F.3d 483, 490 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
Moreover, while the Agency is required to consider each of the
factors, it ``need not make explicit findings as to each one.'' MacKay
v. Drug Enf't Admin., 664 F.3d 808, 816 (10th Cir. 2011) (quoting
Volkman v. U.S. Drug Enf't Admin., 567 F.3d 215, 222 (6th Cir. 2009));
Jones Total Health Care Pharmacy, LLC v. Drug Enf't Admin., 881 F.3d
823, 830 (11th Cir. 2018); Hoxie v. Drug Enf't Admin., 419 F.3d 477,
482 (6th Cir. 2005). ``In short, . . . the Agency is not required to
mechanically count up the factors and determine how many favor the
Government and how many favor the registrant. Rather, it is an inquiry
which focuses on protecting the public interest; what matters is the
seriousness of the registrant's misconduct.'' Jayam Krishna-Iyer, M.D.,
74 FR 459, 462 (2009). Accordingly, as the Tenth Circuit has
recognized, Agency decisions have explained that findings under a
single factor can support the revocation of a registration. MacKay, 664
F.3d at 821.
The Government has the burden of proof in this proceeding. 21 CFR
1301.44(e).
B. Registrant's Registration Is Inconsistent With the Public Interest
While the Agency has considered all the public interest factors of
21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1),\5\ the Government's evidence
[[Page 35315]]
in support of its prima facie case is confined to Factors B and D. OSC,
at 3-4. Evidence is considered under Factors B and D when it reflects
compliance or non-compliance with laws related to controlled substances
and experience dispensing controlled substances. Kareem Hubbard, M.D.,
87 FR 21156, 21162 (2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ As to Factor A, there is no record evidence of disciplinary
action against Registrant's state medical license. 21 U.S.C.
823(g)(1)(A). State authority to practice medicine is ``a necessary,
but not a sufficient condition for registration.'' Robert A. Leslie,
M.D., 68 FR at 15230. Therefore, ``[t]he fact that the record
contains no evidence of a recommendation by a state licensing board
does not weigh for or against a determination as to whether
continuation of the Respondent's DEA certification is consistent
with the public interest.'' Roni Dreszer, M.D., 76 FR 19434, 19444
(2011). As to Factor C, there is no evidence in the record that
Registrant has been convicted of any federal or state law offense
``relating to the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of
controlled substances.'' 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1)(C). However, as Agency
cases have noted, ``the absence of such a conviction is of
considerably less consequence in the public interest inquiry'' and
is therefore not dispositive. Dewey C. MacKay, M.D., 75 FR at 49973.
As to Factor E, the Government's evidence fits squarely within the
parameters of Factors B and D and does not raise ``other conduct
which may threaten the public health and safety.'' 21 U.S.C.
823(g)(1)(E). Accordingly, Factor E does not weigh for or against
Registrant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here, as found above, Registrant is deemed to have admitted and the
Agency finds that Registrant issued 18 prescriptions that lacked a
legitimate medical purpose and were issued outside the usual course of
professional practice. Accordingly, the Agency finds substantial record
evidence that Registrant violated 21 CFR 1306.04(a) and Fla. Stat.
Sec. 456.44. The Agency further finds that after considering the
factors of 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), Registrant's continued registration is
``inconsistent with the public interest.'' 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4).
Accordingly, the Government satisfied its prima facie burden of showing
that Registrant's continued registration would be ``inconsistent with
the public interest.'' 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4). The Agency also finds that
there is insufficient mitigating evidence to rebut the Government's
prima facie case. Thus, the only remaining issue is whether, in spite
of Registrant's misconduct, he can be trusted with a registration.
V. Sanction
Where, as here, the Government has met the burden of showing that
Registrant's continued registration is inconsistent with the public
interest, the burden shifts to Registrant to show why he can be
entrusted with a registration. Morall, 412 F.3d. at 174; Jones Total
Health Care Pharmacy, LLC v. Drug Enf't Admin., 881 F.3d 823, 830 (11th
Cir. 2018); Garrett Howard Smith, M.D., 83 FR 18882, 18904 (2018). The
issue of trust is necessarily a fact-dependent determination based on
the circumstances presented by the individual registrant. Jeffrey
Stein, M.D., 84 FR 46968, 46972 (2019); see also Jones Total Health
Care Pharmacy, 881 F.3d at 833. Moreover, as past performance is the
best predictor of future performance, the Agency requires that a
registrant who has committed acts inconsistent with the public interest
accept responsibility for those acts and demonstrate that he will not
engage in future misconduct. See Jones Total Health Care Pharmacy, 881
F.3d at 833; ALRA Labs, Inc. v. Drug Enf't Admin., 54 F.3d 450, 452
(7th Cir. 1995). The Agency requires a registrant's unequivocal
acceptance of responsibility. Janet S. Pettyjohn, D.O., 89 FR 82639,
82641 (2024); Mohammed Asgar, M.D., 83 FR 29569, 29573 (2018); see also
Jones Total Health Care Pharmacy, 881 F.3d at 830-31. In addition, a
registrant's candor during the investigation and hearing is an
important factor in determining acceptance of responsibility and the
appropriate sanction. See Jones Total Health Care Pharmacy, 881 F.3d at
830-31; Hoxie, 419 F.3d at 483-84. Further, the Agency considers the
egregiousness and extent of the misconduct as significant factors in
determining the appropriate sanction. See Jones Total Health Care
Pharmacy, 881 F.3d at 834 & n.4. The Agency also considers the need to
deter similar acts by a Registrant and by the community of registrants.
Jeffrey Stein, M.D., 84 FR at 46972-73.
Here, Registrant did not timely request a hearing, or timely or
properly answer the allegations, and was therefore deemed to be in
default. 21 CFR 1301.43(c)(1), (e), (f)(1); RFAA, at 1. To date,
Registrant has not filed a motion with the Office of the Administrator
to excuse the default. 21 CFR 1301.43(c)(1). Registrant has thus failed
to answer the allegations contained in the OSC and has not otherwise
availed himself of the opportunity to refute the Government's case. As
such, Registrant has not accepted responsibility for the proven
violations, has made no representations regarding his future compliance
with the CSA, and has not demonstrated that he can be trusted with
registration. Accordingly, the Agency will order the revocation of
Registrant's registration.
Order
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21
U.S.C. 824(a) and 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate
of Registration No. BD9971208 issued to Taha Dias, 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 Taha Dias, M.D. to
renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending
application of Taha Dias, M.D. for registration in Florida. This Order
is effective August 25, 2025.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on
July 21, 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. 2025-14077 Filed 7-24-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on July 25, 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.