Notice2026-19840
Christopher Nadorff, 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 61443-61444]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-19840]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Christopher Nadorff, M.D.; Decision and Order
On February 24, 2026, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or
Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Christopher Nadorff,
M.D., of Worthington, Ohio (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. FN4962761,
alleging that Registrant is ``currently without authority to prescribe,
administer, dispense, or otherwise handle controlled substances in the
State of Ohio, 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 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). Here, Registrant did not request a hearing,
and the Agency finds him to be in default. RFAA, at 2.\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
April 22, 2026, the Agency finds that service of the OSC on
Registrant was adequate. The included declaration from a DEA
Diversion Investigator (DI) indicates that on February 25, 2026, the
DI unsuccessfully attempted to serve Registrant at his registered
location. RFAA, Attachment 1, at 1. The following day, the DI
emailed Registrant a copy of the OSC to seven different email
addresses linked to Registrant and received delivery receipt for
five of the email addresses. Id. at 2. The DI additionally attempted
to serve Registrant the OSC through USPS but was unsuccessful, which
then led the DI to slide a copy of the OSC under the door at
Registrant's registered location. 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), and 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 deemed admitted. According to the
OSC, effective October 8, 2025, the State Medical Board of Ohio
suspended Registrant's Ohio medical license. RFAAX 1, at 2.
According to Ohio online records, of which the Agency takes
official notice, Registrant's Ohio medical license status remains
suspended.\2\ eLicense Ohio Professional Licensure License Lookup,
<a href="https://elicense.ohio">https://elicense.ohio</a>./oh_verifylicense (last visited date of signature
of this Order). Accordingly, the Agency finds that Registrant is not
currently licensed to practice medicine in Ohio, 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 Order, is not licensed to
practice medicine in Ohio. 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 Office of the
Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration, at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#600405014e0104040f4e0114140f120e051913200405014e070f16"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="395d5c5817585d5d5617584d4d564b575c404a795d5c58175e564f">[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
[[Page 61444]]
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.
802(21).'').\4\ 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\ 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 Ohio statute, ``[n]o person shall knowingly obtain,
possess, or use a controlled substance or a controlled substance
analog,'' except pursuant to a ``prescription issued by a licensed
health professional authorized to prescribe drugs if the prescription
was issued for a legitimate medical purpose.'' Ohio Rev. Code Sec.
2925.11(A), (B)(1)(d) (2025). Further, a `` `[l]icensed health
professional authorized to prescribe drugs' or `prescriber' means an
individual who is authorized by law to prescribe drugs or dangerous
drugs or drug therapy related devices in the course of the individual's
professional practice.'' Id. Sec. 4729.01(I). The Ohio statute further
defines an authorized prescriber as ``[a] physician authorized under
Chapter 4731. of the Revised Code to practice medicine and surgery,
osteopathic medicine and surgery, or podiatric medicine and surgery.''
Id. Sec. 4729.01(I)(5). Additionally, Ohio law permits ``[a] licensed
health professional authorized to prescribe drugs, if acting in the
course of professional practice, in accordance with the laws regulating
the professional's practice'' to prescribe or administer schedule II,
III, IV, and V controlled substances to patients. Id. Sec.
3719.06(A)(1)(a)-(b).
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant
currently lacks a license to practice medicine in Ohio. As discussed
above, an individual must be a licensed health professional authorized
to prescribe drugs in order to handle controlled substances in Ohio.
Thus, because Registrant lacks a license to practice medicine in Ohio
and, therefore, is not authorized to handle controlled substances in
Ohio, Registrant is not eligible to maintain a DEA registration in
Ohio. 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.
FN4962761 issued to Christopher Nadorff, 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 Christopher Nadorff, M.D., to
renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending
application of Christopher Nadorff, M.D., for additional registration
in Ohio. 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 the legal effect
of this document upon publication in the Federal Register.
Heather Achbach,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Drug Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 2026-19840 Filed 9-28-26; 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 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.