Rosa A. Fuentes, M.D.; Decision and Order, 25888-25890 [2021-09907]
Download as PDF
25888
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 11, 2021 / Notices
Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the
Act on January 19, 2021 (86 FR 5251).
Suzanne Morris,
Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics,
Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2021–09901 Filed 5–10–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division
Notice Pursuant to the National
Cooperative Research and Production
Act of 1993—National Spectrum
Consortium
Notice is hereby given that, on April
6, 2021, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the
National Cooperative Research and
Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), National Spectrum
Consortium (‘‘NSC’’) has filed written
notifications simultaneously with the
Attorney General and the Federal Trade
Commission disclosing changes in its
membership. The notifications were
filed for the purpose of extending the
Act’s provisions limiting the recovery of
antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages
under specified circumstances.
Specifically, AirV Labs, Inc, Champaign,
IL; Altagrove, LLC, Herndon,VA;
Applied Technology, Inc., King George,
VA; Artesion, Inc., Tacoma WA; Aurora
Insight Inc., Denver, CO; B23 LLC,
Tysons, VA; BTAS, Inc., Beavercreek,
OH; Cable Television Laboratories, Inc.,
Louisville, CO; Capgemini Government
Solutions, LLC, McLean, VA; Capstone
Partners, Inc., Lancaster, PA; CNF
Technologies, San Antonio, TX; Echo
Ridge, LLC., Sterling, VA; Encryptor,
Inc., Plano, TX; Engineering & Computer
Simulations, Inc., Orlando, FL;
Envistacom, LLC., Atlanta, GA; Epirus,
Inc., Hawthorne, CA; Exyn
Technologies, Philadelphia, PA; General
Radar Corporation, Belmont, CA; IFS
North America, Inc., Chicago, IL; M3
Defense Consulting, LLC, Sterling
Heights, MI; Metawave Corporation,
Carlsbad, CA; Mobile Frontiers, LLC.,
Vienna, VA; NanoVMs, Inc., San
Francisco, CA; Naval Systems, Inc.,
Lexington Park, MD; NeuComm
Solutions, LLC, Aurora, CO;
NineTwelve Institute, Indianapolis, IN;
Noblis Inc., Reston, VA; Northeast UAS
Airspace Integration Research Alliance,
Inc.(NUAIR), Syracuse, MA; OptoKnowledge Systems, Inc., Torrance, CA;
Radiall USA, Inc, Tempe, AZ; Robotic
Research, LLC, Clarksburg, MD; RVJ
Institute, Inc., Milford, NH; Shield AI
Inc., San Diego, CA; SIEGE
Technologies, Chantilly, VA; SimX, Inc.,
Los Altos, CA; Swim.ai, Inc., Campbell,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:13 May 10, 2021
Jkt 253001
CA; Teletronics Technology
Corporation, Newtown, PA; UI Labs dba
MxD USA, Chicago, IL; USCC Services,
LLC, Chicago, IL; and Zin Solutions,
Inc. DBA Axiom Towers, Tulsa, OK
have been added as parties to this
venture.
Also, GreenSight Agronomics, Inc.,
Boston, MA; MixComm, Inc., Chatham,
NJ; NTS Technical Systems, Calabasas,
CA; Ultra Communications, Inc., Vista,
CA; Veritech, LLC, Glendale, AZ; MW
Ventures LLC, DBA Social Mobile,
Miami, FL; Paul Christoforou dba
Lociva, Haymarket, VA; Rodriguez,
Jonathan, La Habra, CA; James River
Design & MFG LLC DBA Avcom of
Virginia, North Chesterfield, VA; Garou
Inc., New York, NY; CIPHIR–TM, LLC,
Albany, OR; Corner Alliance, Inc.,
Washington, DC; Erebus Solutions Inc.,
Rochester, NY; IAI, LLC, Chantilly, VA;
InCadence Strategic Solutions,
Manassas, VA; NetApp, Inc., Sunnyvale,
CA; Peregrine Technical Solutions, LLC,
Yorktown, VA; University of
Washington, Seattle, WA; W5
Technologies, Inc., Scottsdale, AZ;
AuresTech Inc., Tewksbury, MA;
Electronic Design and Development
Corp (ED2), Tucson, AZ; Fenix Group,
Inc., Chantilly, VA; HawkEye 360, Inc.,
Herndon, VA; Mavenir Systems, Inc.,
Richardson, TX; MegaWave
Corporation, Worcester, MA; NorthWest
Research Associates, Inc., Redmond,
WA; Pi Radio Inc., Brooklyn, NY;
QuayChain, Inc., San Pedro, CA; Sentar,
Inc., Huntsville, AL; and TrustComm,
Inc., Stafford, VA have withdrawn from
this venture.
No other changes have been made in
either the membership or planned
activity of the group research project.
Membership in this group research
project remains open, and NSC intends
to file additional written notifications
disclosing all changes in membership.
On September 24, 2014, NSC filed its
original notification pursuant to Section
6(a) of the Act. The Department of
Justice published a notice in the Federal
Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the
Act on November 4, 2014 (79 FR 65424).
The last notification was filed with
the Department on January 15, 2021. A
notice was published in the Federal
Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the
Act on February 12, 2021 (86 FR 9376).
Suzanne Morris,
Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics,
Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2021–09898 Filed 5–10–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Rosa A. Fuentes, M.D.; Decision and
Order
On March 1, 2021, the Assistant
Administrator, Diversion Control
Division, Drug Enforcement
Administration (hereinafter,
Government), issued an Order to Show
Cause (hereinafter, OSC) to Rosa A.
Fuentes, M.D. (hereinafter, Registrant) of
San Antonio, Texas. OSC, at 1. The OSC
proposed the revocation of Registrant’s
Certificate of Registration No.
FF5063172. It alleged that Registrant is
without ‘‘authority to handle controlled
substances in Texas, the state in which
[Registrant is] registered with DEA.’’ Id.
at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).
Specifically, the OSC alleged that the
Texas Medical Board issued an order of
Temporary Suspension with Notice of
Hearing on December 18, 2020. Id. This
Order, according to the OSC,
immediately suspended Registrant’s
Texas state medical license following
the Texas Medical Board’s finding that
Registrant ‘‘prescribed controlled
substances in violation of the
restrictions that the Board had imposed
on [Registrant’s] prescribing authority.’’
Id.
The OSC notified Registrant of the
right to request a hearing on the
allegations or to submit a written
statement, while waiving the right to a
hearing, the procedures for electing each
option, and the consequences for failing
to elect either option. Id. at 2 (citing 21
CFR 1301.43). The OSC also notified
Registrant of the opportunity to submit
a corrective action plan. OSC, at 3
(citing 21 U.S.C. 824(c)(2)(C)).
Adequacy of Service
In a Declaration dated April 20, 2021,
a Diversion Investigator (hereinafter, DI)
assigned to the San Antonio District
Office, Houston Field Division, stated
that on March 5, 2021, she, another DI,
and a DEA Task Force Officer traveled
to Registrant’s last known residential
address on her 2018-issued driver’s
license. Request for Final Agency
Action, dated April 20, 2021
(hereinafter, RFAA), Exhibit
(hereinafter, RFAAX) 3 (DI’s
Declaration), at 2. The DI stated that
they met and spoke with Registrant’s
mother who told them that Registrant
was not there. Id. While at the same
address, the DI then called Registrant at
the contact number indicated on her
DEA registration and spoke with
Registrant, and asked if the DI could
leave the OSC with her mother. Id.
E:\FR\FM\11MYN1.SGM
11MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 11, 2021 / Notices
Registrant confirmed that the DI could
leave the OSC with her mother and said
that she would come to the address later
to retrieve it. Id. The DI stated that she
then personally handed Registrant’s
mother a copy of the OSC and asked
Registrant’s mother to sign DEA Form
12, ‘‘Receipt for Cash or Other Items’’
(hereinafter, DEA 12) to indicate that
she had received the OSC. Id. On March
10, 2021, the DI, along with another DI,
visited Registrant’s place of business. Id.
The DI verified Registrant’s identity at
her place of business by observing
Registrant’s State of Texas driver’s
license. Id. at 2–3. The DI stated that she
then personally handed Registrant an
additional copy of the OSC and
explained that the 30-day timeline to
respond to the OSC began on March 5,
2021, the date when Registrant’s mother
had been served with the OSC. Id. at 3.
The Government forwarded its RFAA,
along with the evidentiary record, to
this office on April 20, 2021. In its
RFAA, the Government represents that
‘‘[Registrant] has not submitted a timely
request for a hearing in this matter.’’ 1
RFAA, at 1. The Government requests
that the Administrator revoke
Registrant’s DEA registration on the
ground that Registrant is ‘‘presently not
authorized to handle controlled
substances in the State of Texas.’’ Id. at
2 and 6.
Based on the DI’s Declaration, the
Government’s written representations,
and my review of the record, I find that
the Government accomplished service
of the OSC on Registrant on March 5,
2021. I also find that more than thirty
days have now passed since the
Government accomplished service of
the OSC. Further, based on the
Government’s written representations, I
find that neither Registrant, nor anyone
purporting to represent the Registrant,
requested a hearing, submitted a written
statement while waiving Registrant’s
right to a hearing, or submitted a
corrective action plan. Accordingly, I
find that Registrant has waived the right
to a hearing and the right to submit a
written statement and corrective action
plan. 21 CFR 1301.43(d) and 21 U.S.C.
824(c)(2)(C). I, therefore, issue this
Decision and Order based on the record
submitted by the Government, which
constitutes the entire record before me.
21 CFR 1301.43(e).
1 The Government also represents that as of the
date of the RFAA, ‘‘neither [Registrant] nor any
attorney representing her has requested a hearing’’
and ‘‘[neither Registrant] nor any attorney for her
[has] submitted a written statement.’’ RFAA, at 2.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:13 May 10, 2021
Jkt 253001
Findings of Fact
Registrant’s DEA Registration
Registrant is the holder of DEA
Certificate of Registration No.
FF5063172 at the registered address of
Texas Low T & Weight Loss Clinic
PLLC, 7551 Callaghan Road, Suite 120,
San Antonio, Texas 78229. RFAAX 1
(DEA Certificate of Registration).
Pursuant to this registration, Registrant
is authorized to dispense controlled
substances in schedules IV and V as a
practitioner. Id.
The Status of Registrant’s State License
On December 18, 2020, the Texas
Medical Board (hereinafter, Board)
issued an Order of Temporary
Suspension with Notice of Hearing
(hereinafter, Suspension Order). RFAAX
3, App. A (Suspension Order), at 1.
According to the Suspension Order,
Registrant has a ‘‘lengthy disciplinary
history with the Board.’’ Id. at 2.
On or around August 31, 2012, the
Board publicly reprimanded Registrant
through an Agreed Order (hereinafter,
2012 Order) and imposed certain terms
and conditions on her medical license
based on her ‘‘failure to adequately
supervise mid-level practitioners,
prescribing controlled substances
without valid controlled substance
registration certificates, and providing
false information to the Board.’’ Id. The
2012 Order also required that Registrant
take and pass the JP Exam, complete
eight hours of continuing medical
education in risk management, complete
sixteen hours of continuing medical
education in supervision of mid-level
providers, and pay an administrative
penalty of $5,000. Id. On or about June
12, 2015, the 2012 Order was terminated
by the Board based on Registrant’s
representation that she ‘‘no longer
employed mid-level practitioners and
had no plans to employ mid-level
practitioners in the future.’’ Id.
On March 2, 2018, the Board entered
a Final Order (2018 Final Order) that
‘‘prohibited [Registrant] from
possessing, administering, dispensing,
or prescribing Schedules II and III
controlled substances with the sole
exception of testosterone therapy and
that only allowed her to prescribe
Schedules IV and V controlled
substances to patients for periods of less
than 30 days with refills prohibited.’’ Id.
at 2–3. Registrant was also prohibited
from issuing any refills for controlled
substances for a minimum of five years,
as well as prohibited from ‘‘delegating
to or supervising the activities of midlevel practitioners.’’ Id. at 3. The 2018
Final Order followed a contested case
proceeding at the State Office of
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
25889
Administrative Hearings. Id. at 2. The
action was based on Registrant ‘‘being
placed on deferred adjudication
following a guilty plea for violating
provisions of the Medical Practice Act.’’
Id. at 3.
On December 6, 2019, the Board
entered an Agreed Order on Formal
Filling (2019 Order) after determining
that Registrant was in violation of the
prescribing restrictions in the 2018
Final Order. Id. The 2019 Order first
required that Registrant ‘‘request
modification of her DEA Controlled
Substances Registration Certificates to
eliminate Schedules II and III within
seven days of entry of the [2019 Order].’’
Id. The 2019 Order also required that
Registrant ‘‘could only prescribe
controlled substances in accordance
with the conditions set forth in the
[2018 Final Order]’’ and that Registrant
was ‘‘prohibited from re-registering with
the DEA for Schedules II and III
controlled substances without written
authorization from the Board after a
personal appearance.’’ Id. Additionally,
the 2019 Order prohibited Registrant
from ‘‘possessing, administering, or
prescribing controlled substances in
Texas other than prescriptions written
to her by a licensed provider for
legitimate personal use’’ and required,
effective February 1, 2020, that
Registrant ‘‘limit her practice to a preapproved group or institutional setting.’’
Id. Further, the 2019 Order required that
Registrant undergo eight consecutive
cycles of chart monitoring and
prohibited Registrant from supervising
or delegating prescriptive authority to
mid-level providers. Id. Finally, the
2019 Order required Registrant to
‘‘provide a copy of the [2019 Order] to
all healthcare entities where privileged
or practicing and to provide proof of
such delivery within 30 days.’’ Id.
According to the Suspension Order,
Registrant violated multiple conditions
set forth in the 2018 and 2019 orders.
First, Registrant ‘‘failed to surrender her
controlled substances registrations with
the DEA to eliminate Schedules II and
III by the December 13, 2019 deadline
in the 2019 Order. In fact, [Registrant]
did not surrender these registrations
until on or around October 20, 2020.’’
Id. Additionally, Registrant ‘‘prescribed
controlled substances in violation of the
2018 and 2019 [orders], as evidenced by
controlled substance refills that were
written between March 16, 2019 and
March 16, 2020 in violation of . . . the
2018 Order.’’ Id. Furthermore, although
Registrant was prohibited, effective
February 1, 2020, from practicing
medicine in any setting other than a preapproved group or institutional setting,
Registrant failed to request approval for
E:\FR\FM\11MYN1.SGM
11MYN1
25890
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 11, 2021 / Notices
a group/institutional setting by the
February 1, 2020 deadline and ‘‘instead,
[Registrant] has continued to practice
medicine at Texas Low T clinic in
violation of . . . the 2019 Order to
date.’’ Id. The Suspension Order went
on to list how Registrant had also
‘‘failed to initiate chart monitoring in
violation of . . . the 2019 Order’’ as
well as ‘‘failed to cooperate with Board
Staff by failing to timely respond to
communications from her Compliance
Officer, by failing to return compliancerelated documentation including but not
limited to evidence that she has
surrendered her Schedule II and III
controlled substances registrations, by
failing to file quarterly compliance
reports, and by mispresenting the nature
and scope of her current practice
setting.’’ Id.
The Suspension Order concluded that
Registrant ‘‘has engaged in
unprofessional conduct by violating the
terms and conditions set forth in the
2018 [Final] Order and the 2019 Order.’’
Id. at 5. The Suspension Order stated
that despite the ‘‘significant restrictions
and requirements imposed on
[Registrant’s] medical practice as the
result of two separate Board orders,
[Registrant’s] practice has continued
almost unchanged since March 2018’’
and that ‘‘[Registrant’s] willingness to
defy the Board through repeated,
flagrant, and ongoing violations of
previous Board Orders intended to
restrict her practice and protect the
public—including one order that
[Registrant] explicitly agreed to—
demonstrates that her continuation in
the practice of medicine poses a
continuing threat to public health and
welfare.’’ Id. Based on its findings and
conclusions, the Board ordered that
Registrant’s medical license be
temporarily suspended ‘‘effective on the
date rendered’’ until superseded by a
subsequent Board order. Id. at 6.
According to Texas’s online records,
of which I take official notice,
Registrant’s license is still suspended.2
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). 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.’’ Accordingly,
Registrant may dispute my finding by filing a
properly supported motion for reconsideration of
finding 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 Office of the Administrator, Drug
Enforcement Administration at
dea.addo.attorneys@dea.usdoj.gov.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:13 May 10, 2021
Jkt 253001
Texas Medical Board, https://www.tmb.
state.tx.us/page/look-up-a-license (last
visited date of signature of this Order).
Texas’s online records show that
Registrant’s medical license remains
suspended and that Registrant is not
authorized in Texas to practice
medicine. Id.
Accordingly, I find that Registrant is
not currently licensed to engage in the
practice of medicine in Texas, the State
in which Registrant is registered with
the DEA.
Discussion
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the
Attorney General is authorized to
suspend or revoke a registration issued
under section 823 of the Controlled
Substances Act (hereinafter, CSA)
‘‘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, the 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. See, e.g.,
James L. Hooper, M.D., 76 FR 71,371
(2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 F. App’x
826 (4th Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh
Blanton, M.D., 43 FR 27,616, 27,617
(1978).
This rule derives from the text of two
provisions of the 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(f). Because Congress has
clearly mandated that a practitioner
possess state authority in order to be
deemed a practitioner under the CSA,
the 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, 76 FR at 71,371–72;
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
Sheran Arden Yeates, M.D., 71 FR
39,130, 39,131 (2006); Dominick A.
Ricci, M.D., 58 FR 51,104, 51,105 (1993);
Bobby Watts, M.D., 53 FR 11,919, 11,920
(1988); Frederick Marsh Blanton, 43 FR
at 27,617.
Under the Texas Controlled
Substances Act, a practitioner in Texas
‘‘may not prescribe, dispense, deliver, or
administer a controlled substance or
cause a controlled substance to be
administered under the practitioner’s
direction and supervision except for a
valid medical purpose and in the course
of medical practice.’’ Tex. Health and
Safety Code Ann. § 481.071 (West 2019).
The Texas Controlled Substances Act
defines ‘‘practitioner,’’ in relevant part,
as ‘‘a physician . . . licensed,
registered, or otherwise permitted to
distribute, dispense, analyze, conduct
research with respect to, or administer
a controlled substance in the course of
professional practice or research in this
state.’’ Id. at § 481.002 (39)(A). Further,
under the Texas Medical Practice Act, a
person must hold a license to practice
medicine in Texas, Tex. Occupations
Code Ann. § 155.001 (West 2019) (‘‘A
person may not practice medicine in
this state unless the person holds a
license issued under [the Medical
Practice Act].’’); see also id. at § 151.002
(‘‘‘Physician’ means a person licensed to
practice medicine in this state.’’), and
‘‘[a] person commits an offense if the
person practices medicine in [Texas] in
violation of’’ the Act, id. at § 165.152(a).
Here, the undisputed evidence in the
record is that Registrant currently lacks
authority to practice medicine in Texas.
I, therefore, find that Registrant is
currently without authority to dispense
controlled substances in Texas, the state
in which she is registered with DEA.
Accordingly, I 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. FF5063172 issued to
Rosa A. Fuentes, M.D. Further, pursuant
to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority
vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f), I
hereby deny any pending application of
Rosa A. Fuentes, M.D. to renew or
modify this registration, as well as any
other pending application of Rosa A.
Fuentes, M.D., for additional
registration in Texas. This Order is
effective June 10, 2021.
D. Christopher Evans,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2021–09907 Filed 5–10–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
E:\FR\FM\11MYN1.SGM
11MYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 11, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25888-25890]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-09907]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
Rosa A. Fuentes, M.D.; Decision and Order
On March 1, 2021, the Assistant Administrator, Diversion Control
Division, Drug Enforcement Administration (hereinafter, Government),
issued an Order to Show Cause (hereinafter, OSC) to Rosa A. Fuentes,
M.D. (hereinafter, Registrant) of San Antonio, Texas. OSC, at 1. The
OSC proposed the revocation of Registrant's Certificate of Registration
No. FF5063172. It alleged that Registrant is without ``authority to
handle controlled substances in Texas, the state in which [Registrant
is] registered with DEA.'' Id. at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)).
Specifically, the OSC alleged that the Texas Medical Board issued
an order of Temporary Suspension with Notice of Hearing on December 18,
2020. Id. This Order, according to the OSC, immediately suspended
Registrant's Texas state medical license following the Texas Medical
Board's finding that Registrant ``prescribed controlled substances in
violation of the restrictions that the Board had imposed on
[Registrant's] prescribing authority.'' Id.
The OSC notified Registrant of the right to request a hearing on
the allegations or to submit a written statement, while waiving the
right to a hearing, the procedures for electing each option, and the
consequences for failing to elect either option. Id. at 2 (citing 21
CFR 1301.43). The OSC also notified Registrant of the opportunity to
submit a corrective action plan. OSC, at 3 (citing 21 U.S.C.
824(c)(2)(C)).
Adequacy of Service
In a Declaration dated April 20, 2021, a Diversion Investigator
(hereinafter, DI) assigned to the San Antonio District Office, Houston
Field Division, stated that on March 5, 2021, she, another DI, and a
DEA Task Force Officer traveled to Registrant's last known residential
address on her 2018-issued driver's license. Request for Final Agency
Action, dated April 20, 2021 (hereinafter, RFAA), Exhibit (hereinafter,
RFAAX) 3 (DI's Declaration), at 2. The DI stated that they met and
spoke with Registrant's mother who told them that Registrant was not
there. Id. While at the same address, the DI then called Registrant at
the contact number indicated on her DEA registration and spoke with
Registrant, and asked if the DI could leave the OSC with her mother.
Id.
[[Page 25889]]
Registrant confirmed that the DI could leave the OSC with her mother
and said that she would come to the address later to retrieve it. Id.
The DI stated that she then personally handed Registrant's mother a
copy of the OSC and asked Registrant's mother to sign DEA Form 12,
``Receipt for Cash or Other Items'' (hereinafter, DEA 12) to indicate
that she had received the OSC. Id. On March 10, 2021, the DI, along
with another DI, visited Registrant's place of business. Id. The DI
verified Registrant's identity at her place of business by observing
Registrant's State of Texas driver's license. Id. at 2-3. The DI stated
that she then personally handed Registrant an additional copy of the
OSC and explained that the 30-day timeline to respond to the OSC began
on March 5, 2021, the date when Registrant's mother had been served
with the OSC. Id. at 3.
The Government forwarded its RFAA, along with the evidentiary
record, to this office on April 20, 2021. In its RFAA, the Government
represents that ``[Registrant] has not submitted a timely request for a
hearing in this matter.'' \1\ RFAA, at 1. The Government requests that
the Administrator revoke Registrant's DEA registration on the ground
that Registrant is ``presently not authorized to handle controlled
substances in the State of Texas.'' Id. at 2 and 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Government also represents that as of the date of the
RFAA, ``neither [Registrant] nor any attorney representing her has
requested a hearing'' and ``[neither Registrant] nor any attorney
for her [has] submitted a written statement.'' RFAA, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the DI's Declaration, the Government's written
representations, and my review of the record, I find that the
Government accomplished service of the OSC on Registrant on March 5,
2021. I also find that more than thirty days have now passed since the
Government accomplished service of the OSC. Further, based on the
Government's written representations, I find that neither Registrant,
nor anyone purporting to represent the Registrant, requested a hearing,
submitted a written statement while waiving Registrant's right to a
hearing, or submitted a corrective action plan. Accordingly, I find
that Registrant has waived the right to a hearing and the right to
submit a written statement and corrective action plan. 21 CFR
1301.43(d) and 21 U.S.C. 824(c)(2)(C). I, therefore, issue this
Decision and Order based on the record submitted by the Government,
which constitutes the entire record before me. 21 CFR 1301.43(e).
Findings of Fact
Registrant's DEA Registration
Registrant is the holder of DEA Certificate of Registration No.
FF5063172 at the registered address of Texas Low T & Weight Loss Clinic
PLLC, 7551 Callaghan Road, Suite 120, San Antonio, Texas 78229. RFAAX 1
(DEA Certificate of Registration). Pursuant to this registration,
Registrant is authorized to dispense controlled substances in schedules
IV and V as a practitioner. Id.
The Status of Registrant's State License
On December 18, 2020, the Texas Medical Board (hereinafter, Board)
issued an Order of Temporary Suspension with Notice of Hearing
(hereinafter, Suspension Order). RFAAX 3, App. A (Suspension Order), at
1. According to the Suspension Order, Registrant has a ``lengthy
disciplinary history with the Board.'' Id. at 2.
On or around August 31, 2012, the Board publicly reprimanded
Registrant through an Agreed Order (hereinafter, 2012 Order) and
imposed certain terms and conditions on her medical license based on
her ``failure to adequately supervise mid-level practitioners,
prescribing controlled substances without valid controlled substance
registration certificates, and providing false information to the
Board.'' Id. The 2012 Order also required that Registrant take and pass
the JP Exam, complete eight hours of continuing medical education in
risk management, complete sixteen hours of continuing medical education
in supervision of mid-level providers, and pay an administrative
penalty of $5,000. Id. On or about June 12, 2015, the 2012 Order was
terminated by the Board based on Registrant's representation that she
``no longer employed mid-level practitioners and had no plans to employ
mid-level practitioners in the future.'' Id.
On March 2, 2018, the Board entered a Final Order (2018 Final
Order) that ``prohibited [Registrant] from possessing, administering,
dispensing, or prescribing Schedules II and III controlled substances
with the sole exception of testosterone therapy and that only allowed
her to prescribe Schedules IV and V controlled substances to patients
for periods of less than 30 days with refills prohibited.'' Id. at 2-3.
Registrant was also prohibited from issuing any refills for controlled
substances for a minimum of five years, as well as prohibited from
``delegating to or supervising the activities of mid-level
practitioners.'' Id. at 3. The 2018 Final Order followed a contested
case proceeding at the State Office of Administrative Hearings. Id. at
2. The action was based on Registrant ``being placed on deferred
adjudication following a guilty plea for violating provisions of the
Medical Practice Act.'' Id. at 3.
On December 6, 2019, the Board entered an Agreed Order on Formal
Filling (2019 Order) after determining that Registrant was in violation
of the prescribing restrictions in the 2018 Final Order. Id. The 2019
Order first required that Registrant ``request modification of her DEA
Controlled Substances Registration Certificates to eliminate Schedules
II and III within seven days of entry of the [2019 Order].'' Id. The
2019 Order also required that Registrant ``could only prescribe
controlled substances in accordance with the conditions set forth in
the [2018 Final Order]'' and that Registrant was ``prohibited from re-
registering with the DEA for Schedules II and III controlled substances
without written authorization from the Board after a personal
appearance.'' Id. Additionally, the 2019 Order prohibited Registrant
from ``possessing, administering, or prescribing controlled substances
in Texas other than prescriptions written to her by a licensed provider
for legitimate personal use'' and required, effective February 1, 2020,
that Registrant ``limit her practice to a pre-approved group or
institutional setting.'' Id. Further, the 2019 Order required that
Registrant undergo eight consecutive cycles of chart monitoring and
prohibited Registrant from supervising or delegating prescriptive
authority to mid-level providers. Id. Finally, the 2019 Order required
Registrant to ``provide a copy of the [2019 Order] to all healthcare
entities where privileged or practicing and to provide proof of such
delivery within 30 days.'' Id.
According to the Suspension Order, Registrant violated multiple
conditions set forth in the 2018 and 2019 orders. First, Registrant
``failed to surrender her controlled substances registrations with the
DEA to eliminate Schedules II and III by the December 13, 2019 deadline
in the 2019 Order. In fact, [Registrant] did not surrender these
registrations until on or around October 20, 2020.'' Id. Additionally,
Registrant ``prescribed controlled substances in violation of the 2018
and 2019 [orders], as evidenced by controlled substance refills that
were written between March 16, 2019 and March 16, 2020 in violation of
. . . the 2018 Order.'' Id. Furthermore, although Registrant was
prohibited, effective February 1, 2020, from practicing medicine in any
setting other than a pre-approved group or institutional setting,
Registrant failed to request approval for
[[Page 25890]]
a group/institutional setting by the February 1, 2020 deadline and
``instead, [Registrant] has continued to practice medicine at Texas Low
T clinic in violation of . . . the 2019 Order to date.'' Id. The
Suspension Order went on to list how Registrant had also ``failed to
initiate chart monitoring in violation of . . . the 2019 Order'' as
well as ``failed to cooperate with Board Staff by failing to timely
respond to communications from her Compliance Officer, by failing to
return compliance-related documentation including but not limited to
evidence that she has surrendered her Schedule II and III controlled
substances registrations, by failing to file quarterly compliance
reports, and by mispresenting the nature and scope of her current
practice setting.'' Id.
The Suspension Order concluded that Registrant ``has engaged in
unprofessional conduct by violating the terms and conditions set forth
in the 2018 [Final] Order and the 2019 Order.'' Id. at 5. The
Suspension Order stated that despite the ``significant restrictions and
requirements imposed on [Registrant's] medical practice as the result
of two separate Board orders, [Registrant's] practice has continued
almost unchanged since March 2018'' and that ``[Registrant's]
willingness to defy the Board through repeated, flagrant, and ongoing
violations of previous Board Orders intended to restrict her practice
and protect the public--including one order that [Registrant]
explicitly agreed to--demonstrates that her continuation in the
practice of medicine poses a continuing threat to public health and
welfare.'' Id. Based on its findings and conclusions, the Board ordered
that Registrant's medical license be temporarily suspended ``effective
on the date rendered'' until superseded by a subsequent Board order.
Id. at 6.
According to Texas's online records, of which I take official
notice, Registrant's license is still suspended.\2\ Texas Medical
Board, https://www.tmb.state.tx.us/page/look-up-a-license (last visited
date of signature of this Order). Texas's online records show that
Registrant's medical license remains suspended and that Registrant is
not authorized in Texas to practice medicine. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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). 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.'' Accordingly, Registrant may dispute my finding by filing
a properly supported motion for reconsideration of finding 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 Office of the Administrator, Drug Enforcement
Administration at [email protected].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, I find that Registrant is not currently licensed to
engage in the practice of medicine in Texas, the State in which
Registrant is registered with the DEA.
Discussion
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized
to suspend or revoke a registration issued under section 823 of the
Controlled Substances Act (hereinafter, CSA) ``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, the 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. See, e.g., James L. Hooper,
M.D., 76 FR 71,371 (2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 F. App'x 826 (4th
Cir. 2012); Frederick Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR 27,616, 27,617 (1978).
This rule derives from the text of two provisions of the 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(f). Because Congress has clearly mandated
that a practitioner possess state authority in order to be deemed a
practitioner under the CSA, the 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, 76
FR at 71,371-72; Sheran Arden Yeates, M.D., 71 FR 39,130, 39,131
(2006); Dominick A. Ricci, M.D., 58 FR 51,104, 51,105 (1993); Bobby
Watts, M.D., 53 FR 11,919, 11,920 (1988); Frederick Marsh Blanton, 43
FR at 27,617.
Under the Texas Controlled Substances Act, a practitioner in Texas
``may not prescribe, dispense, deliver, or administer a controlled
substance or cause a controlled substance to be administered under the
practitioner's direction and supervision except for a valid medical
purpose and in the course of medical practice.'' Tex. Health and Safety
Code Ann. Sec. 481.071 (West 2019). The Texas Controlled Substances
Act defines ``practitioner,'' in relevant part, as ``a physician . . .
licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted to distribute, dispense,
analyze, conduct research with respect to, or administer a controlled
substance in the course of professional practice or research in this
state.'' Id. at Sec. 481.002 (39)(A). Further, under the Texas Medical
Practice Act, a person must hold a license to practice medicine in
Texas, Tex. Occupations Code Ann. Sec. 155.001 (West 2019) (``A person
may not practice medicine in this state unless the person holds a
license issued under [the Medical Practice Act].''); see also id. at
Sec. 151.002 (```Physician' means a person licensed to practice
medicine in this state.''), and ``[a] person commits an offense if the
person practices medicine in [Texas] in violation of'' the Act, id. at
Sec. 165.152(a).
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant
currently lacks authority to practice medicine in Texas. I, therefore,
find that Registrant is currently without authority to dispense
controlled substances in Texas, the state in which she is registered
with DEA. Accordingly, I 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.
FF5063172 issued to Rosa A. Fuentes, M.D. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR
0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f), I hereby
deny any pending application of Rosa A. Fuentes, M.D. to renew or
modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of
Rosa A. Fuentes, M.D., for additional registration in Texas. This Order
is effective June 10, 2021.
D. Christopher Evans,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2021-09907 Filed 5-10-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P