Overview
Title
Milad I. Shaker, M.D.; Decision and Order
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The government took away Dr. Shaker's permission to give out certain medicines because he got into trouble for not following the rules in Pennsylvania, and he also broke the law by giving out drugs wrongly.
Summary AI
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has revoked the DEA registration of Dr. Milad I. Shaker due to his lack of authority to handle controlled substances in Pennsylvania. This decision followed the suspension of his medical license in Pennsylvania after he was found noncompliant with probation terms and was convicted of unlawfully distributing a controlled substance. Dr. Shaker did not request a hearing or submit a corrective action plan, leading to the automatic waiver of these rights. As a result, his registration has been revoked, and any pending applications to renew or modify this registration have been denied.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the Federal Register involves the decision by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to revoke the registration of Dr. Milad I. Shaker. This registration permitted him to handle controlled substances, which is an essential part of a medical practitioner's role when dealing with certain medications. Dr. Shaker's registration was revoked due to his inability to legally handle controlled substances in Pennsylvania, following the suspension of his medical license for failing to comply with probation conditions and being convicted of illegal distribution of a controlled substance. Without contesting the allegations or providing a corrective action plan, Dr. Shaker forfeited his rights to challenge the decision.
General Summary
This notice outlines the legal proceedings and the DEA's decision to revoke Dr. Milad I. Shaker's registration due to the suspension of his medical practice license by the Pennsylvania State Board of Medicine. His medical license was indefinitely suspended after failing to comply with certain conditions of probation and subsequent conviction related to his practice. The DEA's action is based on the requirement that practitioners must have current and active state licenses to dispense controlled substances.
Significant Issues or Concerns
One of the primary concerns highlighted by the document is the complexity of legal language and references, which might be challenging for individuals who are not versed in legal terminology or DEA procedures. The document relies heavily on legal codes and procedural history, which might be confusing for a lay audience. While the document does not touch on financial or spending activities directly, it could raise questions about the resources involved in monitoring such cases.
Impact on the Public
The revocation of Dr. Shaker's DEA registration has broader implications for public health and safety. It underscores the DEA's commitment to ensuring that only qualified and legally permitted practitioners can handle controlled substances. This action helps maintain the integrity of medical practices and safeguards against the potential misuse of controlled substances that could harm patients.
Impact on Stakeholders
For Dr. Shaker, the revocation represents a significant professional setback as it restricts his ability to practice medicine, particularly in handling controlled substances, until he resolves the issues concerning his medical license. For the wider medical community in Pennsylvania and beyond, this decision serves as a cautionary tale about the importance of adhering to legal and professional standards.
Meanwhile, patients benefit from these stringent checks as they ensure practitioners are qualified and authorized, protecting them from potential malpractice or unethical practices. Regulatory bodies and law enforcement agencies might also see this case as an example of effective oversight and enforcement of the rules governing medical practice and controlled substances.
Overall, while the document serves as a detailed account of the legal proceedings against Dr. Shaker, its complex nature necessitates careful interpretation to fully grasp its implications for both legal and public domains.
Issues
• The document does not explicitly detail any financial or spending aspects, so it is unclear if there is any wasteful spending related to the revocation of the DEA registration.
• There is no indication of spending that favors particular organizations or individuals, but the document does not provide detailed financial information.
• The language used in the document is legal and procedural, which may be complex for individuals not familiar with legal proceedings and DEA regulations.
• The use of legal references and codes (e.g., 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), 21 CFR 1301.43) might be difficult for laypersons to understand without additional context or explanation.
• Footnotes contain specific legal allegations (e.g., felony charges) and procedural details that might be complex for readers not versed in legal processes.
• The document provides detailed procedural history and justification for the decision, which may be seen as overly detailed for a general audience.
• The document assumes familiarity with legal and DEA procedures, which may not be accessible to all readers.