Federal
Register Notices > Registrant
Actions - 2007 >
Sunil Bhasin, M.D.; Revocation of Registration
FR Doc E7-1711 [Federal Register: February 2, 2007 (Volume 72, Number
22)] [Notices] [Page 5082-5083] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr02fe07-86]
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Sunil Bhasin, M.D.; Revocation of Registration
On August 4, 2005, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to
Show Cause to Sunil Bhasin, M.D. (Respondent), of San Bernardino, CA.
The Show Cause Order proposed to revoke Respondent's Certificate of
Registration, BB2195116, as a practitioner, on the ground that
Respondent had surrendered his California medical license, and was
therefore without authority to handle controlled substances in the state
where he practiced medicine. Show Cause Order at 1. The Show Cause Order
further notified Respondent of his right to a hearing. Id. at 2.
The Show Cause Order was served by certified mail, return receipt
requested. On September 2, 2005, Respondent acknowledged receipt of the
Show Cause Order as demonstrated by the signed return receipt card which
is contained in the investigative file.
In a letter dated September 5, 2005, Respondent wrote the Deputy
Assistant Administrator asserting that he had rejected the Medical Board
of California's settlement stipulation. Respondent further asserted that
the stipulation was illegal because its terms were illusory, fraudulent
and unconscionable and that he was litigating these issues in federal
district court.
On September 26, 2005, the Government filed a request with the Office
of Administrative Law Judges to docket the matter for a hearing. While
the Government noted that Respondent "did not specifically request a
hearing,'' it expressed the view that the case required an on-the-record
"factual determination of the licensing issue'' before the case was
transmitted to me for final agency action. Govt. Req. to Docket Matter
for Hearing at 1.
Simultaneously, the Government moved for summary disposition. The
basis of the Government's motion was that a Diversion Investigator (DI)
would testify that she had received documents from the Medical Board of
California (MBC) which showed that Respondent had surrendered his state
license on September 27, 2004, that the MBC had adopted the surrender
stipulation on December 6, 2004, and that the MBC Web site indicated
that Respondent's license had been surrendered. Id. at 1-2. Attached to
the motion were documents supporting each of the Government's
contentions.
The matter was assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Mary Ellen
Bittner. On October 7, 2005, the ALJ issued a Memorandum to Parties
(Memo 1). In Memo 1, the ALJ offered Respondent the opportunity to
respond to the Government's request to docket the matter for hearing no
later than October 31, 2005. Memo 1, at 2.
A copy of Memo 1 was sent to Respondent by certified mail. The
mailing, however, was returned unclaimed. Thereafter, the ALJ issued a
new Memorandum to Parties which offered Respondent the opportunity to
respond to the Government's request by December 19, 2005. Memorandum to
Parties 1 (Nov. 28, 2005) (Memo 2). The ALJ further directed that Memo 2
be sent to Respondent by both registered mail with restricted delivery
and first class mail. See id. Again, Respondent did not respond. See
Memorandum to Parties 2 (Mar. 24, 2006) (Memo 3). Thereafter, on January
19, 2006, the Government moved to terminate the proceedings. Motion to
Terminate Proceedings 1. The Government also requested that the ALJ find
that Respondent had waived his right to a hearing. Id.
On March 24, 2006, the ALJ issued a further Memorandum to Parties
(Memo 3). In Memo 3, the ALJ offered Respondent the opportunity to
respond to the Government's motion to terminate by April 13, 2006. Memo
3, at 2. When once again, Respondent failed to respond, the ALJ granted
the Government's motion and ordered that the proceedings be terminated.
See Order Terminating Proceedings 2. In her order, the ALJ also found
that Respondent had failed to request a hearing and had waived his right
to a hearing. See id.
The investigative file was then forwarded to me for final agency
action. I adopt the ALJ's finding that Respondent has waived his right
to a hearing. I therefore enter this final order without a hearing based
on information contained in the investigative file.
[[Page 5083]]
Findings
Respondent holds DEA Certificate of Registration, BB2195116, which
authorizes him to act as a practitioner under the Controlled Substances
Act. Respondent's registered location is 909 N. D Street, San
Bernardino, CA. Respondent's registration does not expire until July 31,
2007.
Respondent was also the holder of a Physician and Surgeon's license
(G67327) issued by the Medical Board of California. According to the
official records of the Medical Board (which were checked on December
18, 2006), Respondent surrendered his license with an effective date of
December 16, 2004. Moreover, Respondent has submitted no evidence to
this Agency showing that the State's order has been vacated or that he
has been granted a new license. Respondent therefore lacks authority
under California law to practice medicine and handle controlled
substances.
Discussion
Under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), a practitioner must be
currently authorized to handle controlled substances in "the
jurisdiction in which he practices'' in order to maintain a DEA
registration. See 21
U.S.C. 802(21) ("[t]he term 'practitioner' means a physician * * *
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''). See
also id. sec.
823(f) ("The Attorney General shall register practitioners * * * if
the applicant is authorized to dispense * * *controlled substances under
the laws of the State in which he practices.''). DEA has held repeatedly
that the CSA requires the revocation of a registration issued to a
practitioner whose state license has been suspended or revoked. See
Sheran Arden Yeates, 71 FR 39130, 39131 (2006); Dominick A. Ricci, 58 FR
51104, 51105 (1993); Bobby Watts, 53 FR 11919, 11920 (1988). See also 21
U.S.C. 824(a)(3)(authorizing the revocation of a registration "upon
a finding that the registrant * * * has had his State license or
registration suspended [or] revoked * * * and is no longer authorized by
State law to engage in the * * * distribution [or] dispensing of
controlled substances'').
Following service of the Show Cause Order, Respondent submitted a
letter asserting that he had rejected the Medical Board's settlement
stipulation. Respondent also contended that the stipulation was illegal
because its terms were illusory, fraudulent and unconscionable.
As found above, the official records of the Medical Board of
California indicate that Respondent does not hold a current state
medical license and therefore is without authority to handle controlled
substances in the State where he is registered with DEA. As for
Respondent's conclusory assertions regarding the illegality of the
stipulation, DEA precedents hold that a registrant can not collaterally
attack the results of a state criminal or administrative proceeding in a
proceeding under section 304 of the CSA. See Shahid Musud Siddiqui, 61
FR 14818, 14818-19 (1996); Robert A. Leslie, 60 FR 14004, 14005 (1995).
Thus, even if Respondent had submitted evidence establishing the
illegality of the stipulation, a DEA Show Cause Proceeding is not the
proper forum to litigate the issue. Because Respondent lacks authority
under California law to handle controlled substances, he is not entitled
to maintain his DEA registration.
Order
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C.
823(f) & 824(a), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b) & 0.104, I hereby
order that DEA Certificate of Registration, BB2195116, issued to Sunil
Bhasin, M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. I further order that any
pending applications for renewal or modification of such registration
be, and they hereby are, denied. This order is effective March 5, 2007.
Dated: January 26, 2007.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. E7-1711 Filed 2-1-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
NOTICE: This is an
unofficial version. An official version of these publications may be obtained
directly from the Government Printing Office (GPO).
|