Notice2026-19839
Jorge J. Figueroa, 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
September 29, 2026
Issuing agencies
Justice DepartmentDrug Enforcement Administration
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 187 (Tuesday, September 29, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 187 (Tuesday, September 29, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61444-61446]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-19839]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Jorge J. Figueroa, M.D.; Decision and Order
On May 27, 2026, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Jorge J. Figueroa,
M.D., of West New York, New Jersey (Registrant). Request for Final
Agency Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 1, at 1, 4. The OSC proposed the
revocation of Registrant's Certification of Registration No. FF1775660,
alleging that Registrant has been mandatorily excluded from
participation in Medicare, Medicaid, and all Federal health care
programs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7(a). Id. at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C.
824(a)(5)).
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
3 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). Here, Registrant did not request a hearing,
and the Agency finds him to be in default. RFAA, at 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 July
22, 2026, the Agency finds that service of the OSC on Registrant was
adequate. The RFAA's included Declaration from a DEA Diversion
Investigator (DI) indicates that the DI unsuccessfully attempted to
personally serve Registrant a copy of the OSC three times; twice on
June 3, 2026, and once on June 4, 2026. RFAAX 2, at 2. On June 4,
2026, the DI then mailed and emailed a copy of the OSC to
Registrant, in response to which the DI received a certified USPS
return receipt signed by Registrant which confirmed delivery of the
OSC on June 5, 2026. Id.; see id. Appendix A, at 2. Here, the Agency
finds that Registrant was successfully served the OSC by mail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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] Sec. 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 3;
see 21 CFR 1316.67.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The RFAA states that ``the Administrator is authorized to
render the Agency's final order, without holding a hearing or making
findings of fact in this matter.'' RFAA, at 3 (citing 21 CFR
1301.43(c), (f), and 1301.46). However, 21 CFR 1316.67 requires that
the Administrator's final order ``set forth the final rule and
findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which the rule is
based.'' See JYA LLC d/b/a Webb's Square Pharmacy, 90 FR 31244,
31246 n.7 (2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Findings of Fact
Registrant is deemed to admit, and the Agency finds, that on
December 6, 2017, in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey, Registrant pled guilty to one count of racketeering,
[[Page 61445]]
transporting in aid of travel in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2 and
1952(a)(3). RFAAX 1, at 2. As a result of Registrant's guilty plea, the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector
General (HHS/OIG), mandatorily excluded Registrant from participation
in Medicare, Medicaid, and all Federal health care programs, effective
April 19, 2018, for a minimum period of 15 years, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
1320a-7(a). Id. Accordingly, the Agency finds substantial record
evidence that Registrant has been mandatorily excluded from
participation in Medicare, Medicaid, and all Federal health care
programs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7(a).
Discussion
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(5), the Attorney General is authorized
to suspend or revoke a registration issued under section 823 of the CSA
upon finding that the registrant ``has been excluded (or directed to be
excluded) from participation in a program pursuant to section 1320a-
7(a) of Title 42.'' The Agency has consistently held that it may also
deny an application upon finding that an applicant has been excluded
from a federal health care program. Mark Agresti, M.D., 90 FR 30098,
30099 (2025); Samirkumar Shah, M.D., 89 FR 71931, 71933 (2024);
Arvinder Singh, M.D., 81 FR 8247, 8248 n.3 (2016). The exclusion must
be mandatory, rather than permissive, to constitute a basis for
revocation under 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(5). Kansky J. Delisma, M.D., 85 FR
23845, 23849 (2020). The underlying conviction forming the basis for
mandatory exclusion from participation in federal health care programs
need not involve controlled substances to provide the grounds for
revocation pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(5). Moustafa M. Aboshady, M.D.,
90 FR 15992, 15993 n.5 (2025).
The Government has the burden of proof in this proceeding, 21 CFR
1301.44(e), and the Agency must make its findings based on
``substantial [record] evidence.'' \3\ 5 U.S.C. 556(d); see 5 U.S.C.
706(2); 21 U.S.C. 877. If the Government meets its burden of
establishing a prima facie case that Registrant ``has been excluded (or
directed to be excluded) from participation in a program pursuant to
[42 U.S.C.] 1320a-7(a),'' 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(5), then the burden shifts
to Registrant to demonstrate that he can be trusted with registration.
Delisma, 85 FR at 23846, 23849, 23851.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ According to the CSA, ``[f]indings of fact by the [DEA
Administrator], if supported by substantial evidence, shall be
conclusive.'' 21 U.S.C. 877. Here, where Registrant is found to be
in default, all the factual allegations in the OSC are deemed to be
admitted. These uncontested and deemed admitted facts constitute
evidence that exceeds the ``substantial evidence'' standard of 21
U.S.C. 877.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency found above that HHS/OIG mandatorily excluded Registrant
from participation in Medicare, Medicaid, and all Federal health care
programs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7(a). Accordingly, the Agency
finds that substantial record evidence establishes the Government's
prima facie case for revocation of Registrant's registration under 21
U.S.C. 824(a)(5).
Sanction
Where, as here, the Government has met its prima facie burden of
showing that Registrant's registration should be revoked, the burden
shifts to Registrant to show why he can be entrusted with a
registration. Morall v. Drug Enf't Admin., 412 F.3d. 165, 174 (D.C.
Cir. 2005); 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 (2018). The issue of trust is necessarily a fact-dependent
determination based on the circumstances presented by the individual
practitioner. Jeffrey Stein, M.D., 84 FR 46968, 46972 (2019); see Jones
Total Health Care Pharmacy, 881 F.3d at 833. Moreover, as past
performance is the best predictor of future performance, DEA
Administrators have required that a registrant who has committed acts
inconsistent with the public interest must accept responsibility for
those acts and demonstrate that the registrant will not engage in
future misconduct. 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).
Historically, the Agency has considered acceptance of responsibility,
egregiousness, and deterrence when making this assessment. See Michael
Bouknight, 90 FR 31247, 31250 (2025); Sasha Melissa Ikramelahai, 90 FR
32017, 32020-21 (2025); Frank Joseph Stirlacci, M.D., 85 FR 45229,
45239-40 (2020).
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 Jones Total Health
Care Pharmacy, 881 F.3d at 830-31. In addition, a registrant's candor
during the investigation and hearing, if one is requested, 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 v. Drug Enf't Admin., 419 F.3d 477, 483-84 (6th Cir.
2005). Further, the Agency has found that the egregiousness and extent
of the misconduct are significant factors in determining the
appropriate sanction. Jones Total Health Care Pharmacy, 881 F.3d at 833
n.4, 834. 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 answer the
allegations in the OSC and was deemed to be in default. 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 properly 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), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No.
FF1775660, issued to Jorge J. Figueroa, 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 Jorge J. Figueroa, M.D., to
renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending
application of Jorge J. Figueroa, M.D., for additional registration in
New Jersey. This Order is effective October 29, 2026.
Signing Authority
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on
September 21, 2026, by DEA Administrator Terrance C. Cole. 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
[[Page 61446]]
the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal
Register.
Heather Achbach,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Drug Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 2026-19839 Filed 9-28-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on September 29, 2026.
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.