Jeffrey S. Holverson, M.D.; Decision and Order, 50033-50034 [2015-20346]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 159 / Tuesday, August 18, 2015 / Notices
to an Administrative Law Judge, who
ordered the Government to respond to
Respondent’s statement that ‘‘he
currently has an active license.’’ GX 5,
at 1.
In the meantime, on September 3,
2014, the New Mexico Medical Board
notified a DEA Diversion Investigator in
the Albuquerque District Office that the
Board’s August 12, 2014 Order did not
place any formal restrictions on
Respondent’s authority to prescribe
controlled substances, explaining that
his prescribing was not at issue in the
Board’s case. GX 3. Thereafter, on
September 9, 2014, the Government
filed a motion for Termination of
Proceedings, stating that the allegations
of the Show Cause Order were now
moot and that ‘‘these developments
apparently obviate the need for any
further proceedings.’’ GX 5, at 2.
Noting that Respondent had not
requested a hearing, the ALJ concluded
that ‘‘the only jurisdictional authority’’
she possessed was to determine whether
to grant Respondent’s request for ‘‘a
reasonable extension of the time
allowed for response to an Order to
Show Cause.’’ Order Denying
Respondent’s Motion For Extension of
Time, at 2 (quoting 21 CFR 1316.47).
The ALJ thus concluded that she did not
have jurisdiction to rule on the
Government’s motion. Id. The ALJ then
denied Respondent’s motion, ‘‘with the
understanding that the Government will
take the necessary steps to properly
dismiss the’’ Show Cause Order. Id.
On February 3, 2015, the Government
submitted a ‘‘Request [f]or Dismissal [o]f
Order [t]o Show Cause.’’ Therein, the
Government states that although
Respondent was without state authority
to handle controlled substances on July
15, 2014, when the Show Cause Order
was issued, the New Mexico Medical
Board has since lifted the suspension of
his medical license and Respondent
currently has no restrictions on his state
authority to handle controlled
substances.2 Id. at 2. Because the Show
Cause Order sought revocation of
Respondent’s registration solely on the
basis of his lack of state authority to
handle controlled substances, and that
ground for revocation no longer exists,
the Government requests that I dismiss
the Order. Id. at 2.
Based on my review of the Board’s
Order, as well as the Board’s September
3, 2014 letter to the Diversion
Investigator, I find that Respondent is
currently authorized to dispense
controlled substances in New Mexico,
2 The Government submitted a copy of the
Board’s Order with its Request for Dismissal. See
GX 2.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:02 Aug 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
the State in which he is registered with
this Agency. Because Respondent’s loss
of state authority was the sole basis for
the Show Cause Order and this ground
no longer exists, I conclude that this
case is now moot and will order that the
Show Cause Order be dismissed.
Order
Pursuant to the authority vested in me
by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), as well as 28 CFR
0.100(b), I order that the Order to Show
Cause issued to Nicholas J. Nardacci,
M.D., be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
This Order is effective immediately.
Dated: August 10, 2015.
Chuck Rosenberg,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015–20350 Filed 8–17–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 15–19]
Jeffrey S. Holverson, M.D.; Decision
and Order
On March 27, 2015, the Deputy
Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement
Administration, issued an Order to
Show Cause to Jeffrey S. Holverson,
M.D. (Respondent), of Salt Lake City,
Utah. The Show Cause Order proposed
the revocation of Respondent’s DEA
Certificate of Registration, pursuant to
which he is authorized to dispense
controlled substances as a practitioner,
solely on the ground that he does ‘‘not
have authority to handle controlled
substances in . . . Utah, the [S]tate in
which [he is] registered with the DEA.’’
Show Cause Order, at 1.
As the factual basis for the proposed
action, the Show Cause Order alleged
that on January 8, 2015, Respondent
‘‘entered into a ‘Non-Disciplinary
Limitation Stipulation and Order’ ’’ with
the Utah Division of Occupational and
Professional Licensing, pursuant to
which he agreed to the suspension of
his authority to dispense controlled
substances. Id. The Order further
alleged that ‘‘[t]his suspension remains
in effect’’ and that ‘‘[c]onsequently . . .
DEA must revoke [his] registration.’’ Id.
(citing 21 U.S.C. 802(21), 823(f), and
824(a)(3)).
Following service of the Show Cause
Order, Respondent requested a hearing
on the allegations. Order Granting the
Govt’s Mot. for Summ. Disp.
(hereinafter, ALJ Order), at 2. Thereafter,
the Government moved for summary
disposition on the ground that by virtue
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
50033
of the Non-Disciplinary Limitation
Stipulation and Order, which
Respondent entered into on January 8,
2015, he ‘‘does not have authority to
. . . dispense controlled substances’’
under Utah law, and that
notwithstanding that the ‘‘suspension
may or may not continue’’ past the 180day period set forth in the State’s Order,
‘‘DEA final orders are clear and
unequivocal that [Respondent’s]
registration should be revoked.’’ Gov’t
Mot. for Summ. Disp., at 5. While in his
hearing request, Respondent had
objected to the proposed revocation of
his registration, he did not respond to
the Government’s motion. ALJ Order, at
2–3. The ALJ, finding it undisputed that
‘‘the limitation on [Respondent’s] ability
to prescribe controlled substances will
remain in effect until at least July 7,
2015,’’ and noting that ‘‘there is no
guarantee that his authority . . . will be
restored after 180 days,’’ granted the
Government’s motion and
recommended that Respondent’s
registration be revoked and that any
pending applications to renew or
modify his registration be denied. Id. at
4–6.
Neither party filed exceptions to the
ALJ’s Order. Thereafter, on June 9, 2015,
the ALJ forwarded the record to my
Office for Final Agency Action.
However, upon review of the record, it
was noted that the Non-Disciplinary
Limitation Stipulation was due to expire
on or about July 7, 2015. Accordingly,
on July 27, 2015, I directed the parties
to address whether the order remained
in effect and if the order no longer was
in effect, ‘‘to address whether
Respondent currently possesses
authority to dispense controlled
substances under the laws of the State
of Utah.’’ Order of the Administrator, at
1 (July 27, 2015).
On August 5, 2015, the Government
filed its Response to my Order. Therein,
the Government states that ‘‘[t]he time
of the Suspension Order has now
expired, and DEA has been informed by
[the Division of Professional Licensing]
that at this time the Suspension order
has not been extended.’’ Gov’t
Response, at 2. The Government thus
acknowledges that ‘‘at this time
Respondent is allowed to dispense
controlled substances under the laws of
the State of Utah.’’ Id. The Government
thus requests that the Show Cause Order
be dismissed. Id.
Because the Show Cause Order was
based solely on Respondent’s lack of
authority under state law to dispense
controlled substances and that factual
predicate no longer exists, I grant the
Government’s request and will dismiss
the Show Cause Order.
E:\FR\FM\18AUN1.SGM
18AUN1
50034
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 159 / Tuesday, August 18, 2015 / Notices
Order
As evidenced by the signed return
receipt card, on December 1, 2014,
Respondent was served with the Show
Cause Order. GX 2. On January 6, 2015,
Respondent filed a letter (dated Jan. 2,
2015) which presented her position on
the issues involved in the Nursing
Board’s proceeding. GX 3. Respondent
did not, however, dispute that DEA
‘‘must revoke’’ her registration. Id. Nor
did she request a hearing on the
allegations of the Show Cause Order. Id.
As explained above, under 21 CFR
1301.43(c), ‘‘[a]ny person entitled to a
hearing . . . may, within the period
permitted for filing a request for a
hearing or a notice of appearance, file
with the Administrator a waiver of an
opportunity for a hearing . . . together
with a written statement regarding such
person’s position on the matters of fact
and law involved in such hearing.’’
However, DEA regulations require that
the written statement be filed ‘‘within
30 days after the date of receipt of the’’
Show Cause Order, 21 CFR 1301.43(a),
and specify that documents ‘‘shall be
dated and deemed filed upon receipt by
the Hearing Clerk.’’ Id. § 1316.45. Thus,
I find that Respondent’s letter was
untimely and do not consider it. I
further find that Respondent has waived
her right to a hearing.
Thereafter, on January 28, 2015, the
Government submitted a Request for
Final Agency Action with
accompanying documentation,
including the Nursing Board’s Order
suspending her APN license and a
printout from the Nevada State Board of
Pharmacy showing the status of her
state controlled substance license. I
make the following findings of fact.
Pursuant to the authority vested in me
by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), as well as 28 CFR
0.100(b), I order that the Order to Show
Cause issued to Jeffrey S. Holverson,
M.D., be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
This Order is effective immediately.
Dated: August 10, 2015.
Chuck Rosenberg,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015–20346 Filed 8–17–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Devra Hamilton, N.P.; Decision and
Order
On November 24, 2014, the Deputy
Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA), issued an Order
to Show Cause to Devra Hamilton, N.P.
(hereinafter, Respondent), of Las Vegas,
Nevada. GX 1. The Show Cause Order
proposed the revocation of
Respondent’s Certificate of Registration
MH2194176, on the ground that she
does not currently possess authority to
handle controlled substances in Nevada,
the State in which she is registered with
the Agency. Id. at 1–2 (citing 21 U.S.C.
824(a)(3)).
The Show Cause Order specifically
alleged that on January 16, 2014, the
Nevada State Board of Nursing
suspended Respondent’s license as an
Advance Practitioner of Nursing (APN),
after she admitted that the Board had
‘‘sufficient evidence to prove that [she]
prescribed large amounts of unit doses
of controlled substances between
January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2012,
that [she] failed to adequately assess
patients prior to prescribing controlled
substances, and that [she] documented
inaccurate and contradictory
information in medical records.’’ Id. at
1 (citations omitted). The Show Cause
Order further alleged that in March
2014, the Nevada State Board of
Pharmacy revoked her license to
prescribe controlled substances based
on the Nursing Board’s suspension of
her APN license. Id. The Order thus
alleged that Respondent is ‘‘currently
without authority to handle controlled
substances’’ in the State in which she is
registered, and that her registration is
therefore subject to revocation.1 Id. at 2.
1 The Show Cause Order also notified Respondent
of her right to request a hearing on the allegations
or to submit a written statement in lieu of a hearing,
the procedure for electing either option, and the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:02 Aug 17, 2015
Jkt 235001
Findings
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 556(e), I take
official notice of Respondent’s
registration record with the Agency.
According to that record, Respondent is
currently registered as a mid-level
practitioner, with authority to dispense
controlled substances in schedules II
through V, at the address of 9010 W.
Cheyenne, Las Vegas, NV 89129.
Respondent’s registration does not
expire under October 31, 2016.
On January 8, 2014, Respondent
entered into an ‘‘Agreement for
Probation and Suspension of [her]
Advanced Practitioner of Nursing
Certificate’’; on January 16, 2014, the
Board approved the agreement. Therein,
Respondent denied the allegations
raised by the Board, but admitted that
‘‘the Board ha[d] sufficient evidence to
prove that she prescribed large amounts
consequence of failing to elect either option. Id. at
2 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43).
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
of unit doses of controlled substances
between January 1, 2012 and December
31, 2012, that she failed to adequately
assess patients prior to prescribing
controlled substances, and that she
documented inaccurate and
contradictory information in medical
records.’’ GX 4, at 1. Respondent further
agreed to the Board’s issuance of a
decision and order which suspended
her Advanced Practitioner of Nursing
Certificate ‘‘for a minimum of one year.’’
Id. at 3. According to the online records
of the Board, Respondent’s Advanced
Practitioner of Nursing Certificate either
expired on January 16, 2014 or remains
suspended as of this date. So too, her
Board of Pharmacy license remains
suspended as of this date.
Discussion
The Controlled Substances Act (CSA)
grants the Attorney General authority to
revoke a registration ‘‘upon a finding
that the registrant . . . has had [her]
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.’’ 21 U.S.C.
824(a)(3). Moreover, DEA has long held
that a practitioner must be currently
authorized to handle controlled
substances in the ‘‘jurisdiction in which
[she] practices’’ in order to maintain a
DEA registration. See 21 U.S.C. 802(21)
(‘‘the term ‘practitioner’ means a
physician . . . or other person licensed,
registered or otherwise permitted, by
. . . the jurisdiction in which [she]
practices . . . to distribute, dispense,
[or] administer . . . a controlled
substance in the course of professional
practice.’’); see also id. § 823(f) (‘‘The
Attorney General shall register
practitioners . . . to dispense . . . if the
applicant is authorized to dispense . . .
controlled substances under the laws of
the State in which [she] practices.’’). As
these provisions make plain, possessing
authority under state law to dispense
controlled substances is an essential
condition for holding a DEA
registration. See David W. Wang, 72 FR
54297, 54298 (2007); Sheran Arden
Yeates, 71 FR 39130, 39131 (2006);
Dominick A. Ricci, 58 FR 51104, 51105
(1993); Bobby Watts, 53 FR 11919,
11920 (1988).
Here, the evidence shows that both
Respondent’s Advance Practitioner of
Nursing Certificate and her state
Controlled Substance License have been
suspended by the Nevada State Board of
Nursing and the Nevada State Board of
Pharmacy respectively. I therefore hold
that Respondent no longer possesses
authority under Nevada law to dispense
controlled substances and that she is
E:\FR\FM\18AUN1.SGM
18AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 159 (Tuesday, August 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50033-50034]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20346]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
[Docket No. 15-19]
Jeffrey S. Holverson, M.D.; Decision and Order
On March 27, 2015, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of
Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to
Show Cause to Jeffrey S. Holverson, M.D. (Respondent), of Salt Lake
City, Utah. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of
Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration, pursuant to which he is
authorized to dispense controlled substances as a practitioner, solely
on the ground that he does ``not have authority to handle controlled
substances in . . . Utah, the [S]tate in which [he is] registered with
the DEA.'' Show Cause Order, at 1.
As the factual basis for the proposed action, the Show Cause Order
alleged that on January 8, 2015, Respondent ``entered into a `Non-
Disciplinary Limitation Stipulation and Order' '' with the Utah
Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing, pursuant to which
he agreed to the suspension of his authority to dispense controlled
substances. Id. The Order further alleged that ``[t]his suspension
remains in effect'' and that ``[c]onsequently . . . DEA must revoke
[his] registration.'' Id. (citing 21 U.S.C. 802(21), 823(f), and
824(a)(3)).
Following service of the Show Cause Order, Respondent requested a
hearing on the allegations. Order Granting the Govt's Mot. for Summ.
Disp. (hereinafter, ALJ Order), at 2. Thereafter, the Government moved
for summary disposition on the ground that by virtue of the Non-
Disciplinary Limitation Stipulation and Order, which Respondent entered
into on January 8, 2015, he ``does not have authority to . . . dispense
controlled substances'' under Utah law, and that notwithstanding that
the ``suspension may or may not continue'' past the 180-day period set
forth in the State's Order, ``DEA final orders are clear and
unequivocal that [Respondent's] registration should be revoked.'' Gov't
Mot. for Summ. Disp., at 5. While in his hearing request, Respondent
had objected to the proposed revocation of his registration, he did not
respond to the Government's motion. ALJ Order, at 2-3. The ALJ, finding
it undisputed that ``the limitation on [Respondent's] ability to
prescribe controlled substances will remain in effect until at least
July 7, 2015,'' and noting that ``there is no guarantee that his
authority . . . will be restored after 180 days,'' granted the
Government's motion and recommended that Respondent's registration be
revoked and that any pending applications to renew or modify his
registration be denied. Id. at 4-6.
Neither party filed exceptions to the ALJ's Order. Thereafter, on
June 9, 2015, the ALJ forwarded the record to my Office for Final
Agency Action. However, upon review of the record, it was noted that
the Non-Disciplinary Limitation Stipulation was due to expire on or
about July 7, 2015. Accordingly, on July 27, 2015, I directed the
parties to address whether the order remained in effect and if the
order no longer was in effect, ``to address whether Respondent
currently possesses authority to dispense controlled substances under
the laws of the State of Utah.'' Order of the Administrator, at 1 (July
27, 2015).
On August 5, 2015, the Government filed its Response to my Order.
Therein, the Government states that ``[t]he time of the Suspension
Order has now expired, and DEA has been informed by [the Division of
Professional Licensing] that at this time the Suspension order has not
been extended.'' Gov't Response, at 2. The Government thus acknowledges
that ``at this time Respondent is allowed to dispense controlled
substances under the laws of the State of Utah.'' Id. The Government
thus requests that the Show Cause Order be dismissed. Id.
Because the Show Cause Order was based solely on Respondent's lack
of authority under state law to dispense controlled substances and that
factual predicate no longer exists, I grant the Government's request
and will dismiss the Show Cause Order.
[[Page 50034]]
Order
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), as well
as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I order that the Order to Show Cause issued to
Jeffrey S. Holverson, M.D., be, and it hereby is, dismissed. This Order
is effective immediately.
Dated: August 10, 2015.
Chuck Rosenberg,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015-20346 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
